Maybe where you are. Not for many of us, where 10-30 seconds is the norm everywhere we use it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Square Launches NFC Reader to Bring Apple Pay to Smaller Businesses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe where you are. Not for many of us, where 10-30 seconds is the norm everywhere we use it.
That's interesting, thanks for the reference. I had looked on Square's website, and couldn't find ANY products that supported a PIN. And now that I know it's there, I still can't find a link to it -- I had to find it with Google. But, maybe I'm missing something.
It's like Square doesn't want you to find it, unless you know exactly what to look for. And, it looks like a good solution: it supports NFC, chip, and mag-stripe -- right now. The reader is only a bit more expensive at $129.
That Miura is UK company. Square may have partnered with them but I doubt it works everywhere (I'm guessing just in Europe). Square obviously is targeting the US market and sees that chip and signature is minimum requirement so they probably abandoned the Miura and came out with their own bare minimum hardware. We would have heard more about the Miura otherwise.
There has been people on YouTube, and my Square app has the support for the Miura reader used in the US. It does seem peculiar that Square doesn't want you to find it, and the only way I found out about it was digging through the Square app and I found references to it, and I looked it up on Google.
Honestly the real reason that Square isn't promoting it, seems to be because quite simply put, the Miura reader is ugly. Square's products mirror that of Apple's and that is what they're going for. The Chip & Signature reader they're offering is simple, and quite to the point, and looks really nice. The Miura reader, looks outdated and ugly. They probably are offering this to businesses who want it right now, rather than waiting for the Contactless and Chip & Signature Reader.
The point isn't why, or what security problem it solves. The point is that it sucks to use. It is a noticeably worse experience than swiping your card.
You seem to be having trouble focusing on my words. We don't care about the "encryption/ one time code, cloning, etc". I'm sure you probably know more about how the plastic for the card is molded, too, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is, the commenter said that the chips were to protect banks, NOT consumers. And he was right.
Please, please, try to find the words to describe how idiotic I look. I'm sure it would be entertaining.
Wrong.
The original person I replied to the first time said nothing about banks or consumers.
I then proceeded to tell him why he looks like a fool.
Sure, these cards are absolutely there to protect banks... And the merchant, and the consumer. These cards protect everyone that's involved in the process.
Someone that just blurts out, "these chip cards are stupid," without any basis, will always have a negative reply towards them.
Because you're used to swiping your card.
When we have to change what we've been doing, most new things suck at first.
The downside is that lost/stolen liability is shifted to the merchant for certain non-Visa cards with their main product, but since almost no one in this country issues cards that would fall under that it's unlikely that someone will see any real liability in that situation unless they get a lot of foreign tourists.
Yes, we have to change a simple operation to a more difficult one. The placement of the reader slot on every machine I've seen is impossible to see from a standing position, and requires feeling around or squatting down to find it. You have to be mindful of the prompts to know when to insert it and when to remove it, or the entire operation will fail. Many modern swipe machines had reached the point where you could swipe your card at any time, even before the clerk was finished scanning your items.
It's now an extremely regimented and ergonomically crappy experience. We'll "get used to it", sure. We don't really have a choice.
I'm sure we'll be just fine seeing as the Canadians and everyone else in the world uses the technology just fine. I did notice the newer Verifones have a lit up chip slot whenever it's active, so that might help in finding it. Personally I'll trade a small inconvenience for security any day. It's like the difference of getting visually checked vs. getting screened, wanded, etc, at airport security, which one would you choose?
That's absolutely incorrect. It's to get rid of fraud due to cloning the magnetic stripe. The US accounts for about 50% of the world's credit card transactions, but 80% of the fraud, mainly due to cards getting skimmed and cloned to magnetic stripe.
I got a chip card from Wells Fargo and they included a PIN - there was no opportunity to select my own. I don't remember what it is, but the paper is in my safe, and I'll dig it out and take note of it if I travel internationally. I do remember, however, that it is not 0000 or 1234.
Except that's not a reliable indicator. Target had them lit for a while before they actually started working, for instance.
Yep, those are good things.
Overall fraud rates dipped for a few years but now are higher than ever.
The fraud just moves from magnetic counterfeit cards used in person, to online fraud without even having to make a counterfeit card. The effect on the user is the same. You still have to update your information if the number is stolen. Happened to me just a few weeks ago.
The US avoided moving to chip cards for so long, originally because every transaction authorization has been realtime since the beginning, and then later because US banks created the most sophisticated fraud detection software in the world, allowing them to at least keep fraud to a manageable level. Remember, their fees ALSO TOTALLY COVER the fraud.
So it's not an issue, compared to where banks make the real money: credit card interest rates. And that means: keep the customer spending!
People will try something new if it has easily seen benefits, and more importantly, doesn't slow them down
Last edited:
I'll choose paying with my Apple Watch. I can't wait until it's accepted everywhere so I don't have to use that stupid reader ever again.
A while ago I said that I'm totally expecting people to claim that EMV did/will do absolutely nothing for fraud. I didn't expect it to happen this soon judging by some of the comments in the thread though. There probably won't be a break in the increase in fraud rates because we took so long to upgrade but that's totally different than implying that EMV did nothing for any type of fraud.
I don't think anybody has said that EMV does nothing for any kind of fraud.
What people have said, is that it doesn't change what happens to the consumer that much... or even affect the overall fraud rate... because the fraud moves from card-present to card-not-present purchases.
In the past few months, I've had to get new cards both from in-person and online fraud. The effect on me having to update accounts is the same either way. However, I'm also covered for liability either way. Net change for me: chip card purchases are slower.
If banks really cared about zero fraud, they'd make us all have photo cards that are computer checked against our image, along with thumbprint recognition authenticated by prints registered at the bank itself. But they're far more concerned with keeping us spending.
Now what I think would help, is figuring out an easy way to stop online fraud. E.g. with single-use transaction numbers.
I've had a couple of people tell me that it's no different than magstripe, actually. Perhaps if a PIN was required along with the chip the impression among consumers would be different.
That's because they're morons.
The chip isn't nearly as easy to clone. How are you going to use someone else's card data if you can't clone it? I guess you could go online... But then lies the problem with the billing address.
Not to mention, if a store's systems get hacked, there's only a one time authentication code used, so the information stored on the servers is useless to hackers.
Chip and signature is much, much better in terms of security over what we have, even if I disagree with the way the banks are implementing it--in my opinion, they should be chip and pin.
Not necessarily. From their perspective the only things that changed are that they have to put the card in a different place on the terminal now and that it now takes much longer than swiping. They see lost/stolen fraud being a bigger threat than counterfeiting and wonder why nothing was done about that. Real statistics prove otherwise but humans as a whole have never been all that great at managing risk.
Perspective can change with the proper education, which we have failed to do so in the United States.
It's not that hard... The news sites should be making detailed articles and news stories about chip technology... There should be more advertisements on the internet about it, and more merchants should be accepting that form of payment. Visa, AMEX, and MasterCard should be implementing more commercials about the how these cards are better than the old ones, and whatever else we can do to improve the awareness and education of these cards.
The few businesses that do take chipped transactions need to get off their hineys and take both debit and credit versions. I shouldn't see some woman swipe her chipped debit card while the credit chipped card is prompted to insert into the reader.
Also, a little slip with the new chip card when you get it, explaining how to use it is not sufficient enough. There should be information about the chip cards directly on a bank's debit and credit card page, and also on the homepage and not just stuffed in some small corner on the bottom of that page either.
as usual the facts are wrong. There is no transaction fee and its a flat 2.75%, no monthly fees, no other fees period. So when comparing to other providers its actually quite reasonable.
EMV does nothing to prevent data breaches and does not protect card information. Card numbers, expiry dates etc. are stored on the chip and transmitted "in the clear". EMV is designed to prevent card information from being used to create a counterfeit card. But if a merchant which stores card data does not use other techniques such as encryption, tokenisation etc. the data is still useful to attempt card-not-present transactions.
Debit in the US is complicated because of the Durbin Amendment. The way EMV is designed is not directly compatible with these regulations so the industry had to develop a workaround in order to comply. The technical standards for this were not fully finalised until late last year, and specifications for EMV contactless debit were only finalised a few months ago. It then takes time for applications to be developed, tested, certified, and deployed. So at the moment a lot of terminals in the US cannot properly process an EMV debit. This will change over time.