Was Chip and Pin designed to protect you or the banks?
SHOPS have seen a massive rise in credit and debit card crime since the introduction of chip and pin technology, according to a report published today.
The new system was hailed as virtually fraud-proof but a survey by the Scottish Grocers’ Federation (SGF) suggests card crime has soared by more than 50 per cent since 2005.
John Drummond, SGF chief executive, said: “We were shocked at the staggering rise in card fraud despite the introduction of chip and pin, which was supposed to stamp out credit and debit card misuse.”
Mainly because chip and pin wasn’t implemented to protect you and me, the ordinary consumer, it was introduced to protect the bank. Chip and Pin totally shifts the cost of fraud from the bank to the consumer.
Another sterling example of how much the banks value their customers and take customer care seriously.
Because the PIN code is deemed to be secure, and because it’s digital, you have no evidence to prove your innocence in the case of fraudulent or incorrect charges being made to your card. This is one of the main reasons for the banks implementing Chip and PIN cards – because it removes the cost of fraud (already many millions of pounds a year) and shifts it to the consumer or small business/shop.
In the event of disputed transactions previously, you could point out that you didn’t sign for anything, or your signature is a fake (signatures being much more secure, each one being unique).
So now it’s harder for you to prove your innocence in cases of transaction dispute
Once a valid PIN number has been entered for the transaction, you have virtually no way to prove the transaction wasn’t valid. The onus has shifted your responsibility to guilt unless you can prove your innocence. Because the system is entirely digital, with no input from the customer, how do you prove to the bank that it wasn’t you that entered a valid PIN code? You’ll be treated the same as a criminal who has to prove an alibi or provide evidence they were geographically somewhere else when the transaction took place. Previously you only had to prove the signature wasn’t yours – and signatures are much more secure, each one being unique instead of one in 9999.
After being lulled into a false sense of security, people reply more on what the bank and media feed them via leaflets or technospeak, but that’s generally caused by their own ignorance of how the system works or how you’ve been convinced into the false security by the banks propaganda.
Really, isn’t it about time you opted out of the fraudulent banking system? Join us at www.wealthfreedomfighters.com and get free to make money and keep your money!
Let Me Eat Cake! 