On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:04:33 +0100
Andy Burns wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

On 20/05/2013 20:59, Andy Cap wrote:

I believe it's £50/day max and they promise to refund any
fraudulent transactions.

So how do you prove that *you* didn't make the transaction?

I think the boot's on the other foot

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

god knows where in that lot though ...


That guy Dom on Fake Britain discussed this recently, and showed
that there are numerous cases where the bank says that 'you must have
given your PIN to somebody else', even though the card stayed with the
account holder, and was not used. The Bank is now prosecutor, judge and
jury.
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

That guy Dom on Fake Britain

is such a tosser, I wouldn't believe a word he says

discussed this recently, and showed
that there are numerous cases where the bank says that 'you must have
given your PIN to somebody else', even though the card stayed with the
account holder, and was not used. The Bank is now prosecutor, judge and
jury.

After chip-n-pin was introduced, the banks started 'deciding' that if a
correct PIN had been entered, the customer was liable by default.

The 2009 legislation was brought in partly to reverse that situation.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Davey wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

That guy Dom on Fake Britain

is such a tosser, I wouldn't believe a word he says

discussed this recently, and showed
that there are numerous cases where the bank says that 'you must have
given your PIN to somebody else', even though the card stayed with the
account holder, and was not used. The Bank is now prosecutor, judge and
jury.

After chip-n-pin was introduced, the banks started 'deciding' that if a
correct PIN had been entered, the customer was liable by default.

The 2009 legislation was brought in partly to reverse that situation.

doesn't stop them still trying it on

there are even cases where they argue for months that you are liable because
"the correct pin was entered on a C&P transaction" until you reach the end
of the complaints procedure to find that they admit that it was a mag stripe
transaction all along (and therefore open the standard cloned card fraud)

tim

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:04:33 +0100, Andy Burns put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Roger Mills wrote:

On 20/05/2013 20:59, Andy Cap wrote:

I believe it's £50/day max and they promise to refund any fraudulent
transactions.

So how do you prove that *you* didn't make the transaction?

I think the boot's on the other foot

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

god knows where in that lot though ...

Section 62. Unless the cardholder can be shown to have acted fraudulently,
their liability is strictly limited to £50 for over-the-counter
transactions where either the card has been stolen or the cardholder was
negligent, and zero for any other wrongful use and all distance
transactions (with a few, fairly limited, exceptions) even if the
cardholder was negligent.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:14:03 +0200
"tim......" wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Davey wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

That guy Dom on Fake Britain

is such a tosser, I wouldn't believe a word he says

discussed this recently, and showed
that there are numerous cases where the bank says that 'you must
have given your PIN to somebody else', even though the card stayed
with the account holder, and was not used. The Bank is now
prosecutor, judge and jury.

After chip-n-pin was introduced, the banks started 'deciding' that
if a correct PIN had been entered, the customer was liable by
default.

The 2009 legislation was brought in partly to reverse that
situation.

doesn't stop them still trying it on


And they will, for sure.

--
Davey.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:27:36 +0100,
newshound wrote:
On 20/05/2013 20:31, D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
On 20/05/2013 18:53, Theo Markettos wrote:

Do you have a template for where it needs to be drilled? [I assume that
it's not as simple as drilling out the contactless icon].


If it's like our cards at work (mifare classic) then a small crack at the
edge is enough to break the antenna and stop it working :-(

Darren


Surely *someone* has access to an X-ray machine so that we can map how
to disable them without shafting the chip!


They've moved the wires for the aerial away from the edge as far as I
can tell. Whether this is to help stop them getting broken through
flexing or whether it's to make it harder to disable them, I'm not sure.

But recent experiments have found that the aerial now passes close to
the right hand end of the signature strip rather than the left hand
edge.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/barclays/

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

Tim Woodall wrote:

recent experiments have found that the aerial now passes close to
the right hand end of the signature strip rather than the left hand
edge.

Ah that reminds me, I had about half a dozen barclays debit cards (from
when they were apparently unable to issue me a working combination of
card and PIN) ... did I keep them? ... Probably ... but *where* did I
keep them? ...