On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 03:45:31 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 6:01:03 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 03:49:23 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 3:58:14 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 21:59:56 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The RFID chips are being phased out for security reasons. The new chip
> > > > > cards have to be inserted if the equipment is available, swiped in the
> > > > > meantime.
> > > >
> > > > I still don't understand how the new chipped cards are any safer than
> > > > the old style swipe.
> > >
> > > The transaction is encrypted with a single-use key, and decrypted
> > > on the other end. The old-style magnetic strips could be copied
> > > easily, and there was a whole cottage industry in vandalizing
> > > ATMs and standalone credit-card readers (like gas station pumps)
> > > and installing duplicators. The hapless citizen swipes his card,
> > > the information is read from the magnetic stripe, and the felon
> > > has a copy of the credit card, to use as he pleases.
> > >
> > > The new system is much more complex; it'll probably take some
> > > time before it's cracked and new fraud arises.
> > >
> >
> > The part I don't get is if it's physically stolen, it can be used just
> > as easily as the swipe card until it's reported - which is when both
> > types are cut off.
>
> The old cards don't have to be physically stolen. The card duplicators
> make a copy of the card; the felons can buy quite a bit of stuff with
> it before the card owner notices.
>

I'm not talking about the old cards, I'm talking about the new ones.
There's no failsafe, they're used just like the old ones are.


--

sf