Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

[Nattie]

http://www.theuniversalidsystem.com/

Kiosks will provide the public ID stickers and ID Keys which will reduce fraud crimes to virtually ZERO by making signature and PIN systems reliable.

Signatures personalised with ID stickers will deter fraudsters because in the event of crime we will know who they are. Current signature system is like passports without photos and that is why it is so difficult to deter and prosecute fraudsters.


*To personalise signature all we have to do is to apply ID sticker to the document and countersign so that the signature is shared between ID sticker and document.

*Pre-printed ID stickers will enable us to personalise signature on any document anywhere in the world. Soon we will be able to obtain pre-printed ID stickers from kiosks at various places such as super markets, banks, post offices, and air ports etc.

*Cost of ID stickers and ID Keys will be too nominal to cause concern.

Why would fraudsters get tempted to do fraud when they know that in the event of crime we will know who they are?

Fraudsters have option to misuse victim’s personal details but not their appearance (true identity). Personalised signatures will deter use of fake documents and eliminate the need to protect our personal details.

Personalised signatures will deter

a. Identity fraud, cheque fraud, bankers' draft fraud, mail order fraud if recipients personalise signatures on delivery notes, bogus con-trader fraud if traders personalise their signatures on receipts, goods collected for repair notes etc.

b. Anyone from selling our personal details directly or through internet to fraudsters.

c. Use of fake documents since in the event of crime fraudster's identity will get exposed on the document in question.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Use of ID stickers is probably the best way to make signatures reliable since pre-printed ID stickers will eliminate the use of any equipment including CCTV images.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Reasons why fraudsters will not get tempted to misuse personalised signature system.[/FONT]

1. Image on ID sticker will deter fraudsters from misusing victim’s stolen or faked ID stickers because their appearance will not match.

2. Fraudsters will be deterred from using fake ID stickers with disguised images because

• Police will be able to remove these disguises via use of computers and

• Along with image ID stickers will retain person’s thumbprints and probably skin oil and dead skin cells which will provide DNA.

3. Traders will not be able to fake fraud crimes via use of victim’s ID stickers since police will be able to establish that the crime was faked by proving that the person in question was not at the point of transaction at that moment in time.

Personalised signatures will provide us option to prove to others that we are honest plus make it simple for us to prove our innocence in the event of crime.
Reason why Card Key Code will make card transaction at retail outlet and ATMs reliable and foolproof.

Use of pin-hole cameras, contact sensors etc. has made PIN system unreliable. New Card Key Code required to activate PIN transactions will make it meaningless for fraudsters to use stolen and skimmed cards. Details on this honesty restoring system are on website www.xwave.co.uk

Proposed multi-function ID KEY will solve many unsolved problems without fuss.

ID KEY can be treated as an international ID card since it will personalise signature and PIN number to the right individual in any country in the world.
It is obvious that unless we use ID KEY to make signature and PIN systems reliable, fraud crimes will just continue to grow. We hope that banks will appreciate this system before it is too late to deter fraud boom.

To see BBC video clip on personalised signature system please click on following link Picasa Web Albums - Yogesh - Personalised ... and than click on slide show.

Kiosks will provide the public ID stickers and ID Keys which will retain Card Key Code which will change to new value after every PIN requiring transaction at retail outlet and ATM.

KIOSK will provide the public ID stickers and ID Keys

* This kiosk will take photo of person’s face and print multiple ID stickers at a nominal price. These ID stickers can be used to personalise virtually anything including signatures to deter fraud and medication to deter fatal mistakes. Signatures don’t even expose person’s gender and hence it is virtually impossible to deter identity fraud unless we personalise signatures.

Public will be able to save image and name on ID KEY (memory stick) so that in future they could use this ID KEY to activate kiosk to print them ID stickers and banks could store Card Key Code personalised to various cards on this ID KEY which would be needed to activate card transactions at ATMs and retail outlets. It is virtually impossible to deter card fraud unless we use Card Key Code since fraudsters can skim cards and pick PIN numbers.
We also have option to use ID KEY which will get activated by right thumbprint.

[Nattie]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

I was reading an article about card fraud from a Hampshire newspaper when the one person who decided to make a comment gave a website address. So any thoughts people?

[Paule]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

Years ago, RBoS used to put laser printed photos on the back of their Highline Cards.

My mum and dad used to have one, I though this was a good Idea, Do they still do them?

[argentarius]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

The banks thought that photos on credit/debit cards was a good idea, but then realised it was a waste of time because cashiers didn't check the photos, the same way they didn't check signatures.

So they went for CHIP and PIN instead.

I don't think this will be taken up in the UK because whilst it may superficially appear a good way to authenticate signatures, signatures are an "old-hat" method of identify proof in any case. I think that CHIP and PIN will prevail as the method used to identify people and to authorise transactions.

[righty]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

Having had the briefest of reads my 1st impression is that if true it might be a step in the right direction

[Nattie]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

Pkea, with regards to RBS I agree with the highline cards idea but as has been said by argentarius it got lost because people just don't check signatures photos, etc,etc,. There is sites out there that tested the theory on debit cards, and it proved correct that cashiers cared about the sale more than the security of the cards that the goods paid for.

[argentarius]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

The problem for the banks was that the retailers weren't held liable if the customer gave a rubbish signature, even if they weren't actually the genuine customer.

A major benefit of CHIP and PIN for the banks wasn't just that it got the customer to prove their ID using a PIN, but that if customers were unable to provide a PIN and the retailers accepted the card anyway, the liability passed to the retailers - quite rightly, to be honest.

[Nattie]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

some people would argue that chip and pin has shifted responsibility away from the banks even when a genuine fraud has been made, ie that they must prove to the bank that it was not them and provide evidence.

[righty]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

Well some that argue that this has placed the liability onto the consumer ARE quite expert

http://www.chipandspin.co.uk/spin.pdf

[argentarius]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

Well, it's easy to take a pro-consumer stance, even when reason would suggest the opposite.

It's very easy for an individual to give their CHIP & PIN enabled card to an associate (or for an associate to take it without permission, if the original person is also unsecure about the way they keep their PIN) and for money to be spent/withdrawn using a card without the cardholder personally doing so.

I would suspect that over 90% (made up statistic) of the cases where transactions are queried as non-genuine are in fact of this nature. I'm not saying that 100% of them are, but a lot must be. And of that 90% (made up number), it's hard to say what proportion are cardholder fraud (i.e. cardholder gives card to spouse who uses it at the other end of the country, and then cardholder claims transaction unauthorised) and what proportion are cardholder associate fraud (i.e. spouse/child/other relative/friend removes card from cardholder without permission and spends money).

All of these things happened, maybe less frequently, maybe the same, when signatures prevailed. But at least then the signature would (notionally at least) have been checked and there would be a chance that the cashier would notice the fraud. At that stage, the transaction would IMHO only have been charged back to the retailer if the signature was obviously ridiculous; otherwise the bank would have borne the cost.

It is not IMHO unreasonable that the first suspect in the case of a fraudulent transaction on a CHIP & PIN enabled card is the customer or somebody close to them, simply because there are so many ways (as detailed above) that this can happen.

It is virtually impossible for a customer to show, however, that they are innocent, unless the card was being used at such close proximity (in time) and such far distance (in space) for a genuine and a fraudulent transaction. Many fraudulent transactions are highlighted exactly like this - somebody cannot genuinely spend money using the card in London and Hong Kong within the same few hours. But for people who rarely use their cards, this sort of "happy" :S coincidence is not necessarily going to help them.

That was a long ramble. I'm sort of saying that it's fair for the banks to suspect the customer (or people close to them) might be involved in any suspect transactions. But it's also wrong for banks to state or assume that the customer (or people close to them) are involved in any suspect transaction, unless they get 100% concrete proof to the contrary.

I suspect that in the majority of cases, it boils down to balance of probabilities. A customer with a great history with their bank and many years' good account conduct, is more likely to be believed than someone who's been with the bank for 3 weeks and been in unauthorised overdraft for 2 of those weeks.

I have personally suffered from card fraud, but it hasn't been on PIN-authorised transactions. It's been done using skimmed card details (whether physically or online skimmed) and then money being spent overseas in "card not present" transactions or signature-authorised transactions using false cards. And in every case, the bank has identified the fraudulent transactions before me, and I've had no hassle at all in getting the money reimbursed.

People sometimes seem to forget that banks' prime concern is to avoid being defrauded in the first place. Recharging the cost, where fraud actually takes place, is only a secondary concern.

Now I've said all that, I'll go read the article and see if I have any further thoughts.

----

I'm back. I've read it. I'm not overwhelmingly convinced. It's quite out of date - it refers to fraud statistics quoted in the Guardian in 2005.

The updated statistics (from 08_03_12) are here (edited because they looked pretty in a table on the original site and don't on here): 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 in each case followed by the annual movement from 2006 to 2007:

Phone, internet and mail order fraud (Card-not-present fraud)
£150.8m
£183.2m
£212.7m
£290.5m
+37%
Counterfeit (skimmed/cloned) card fraud
£129.7m
£96.8m
£98.6m
£144.3m
+46%
Fraud on lost or stolen cards
£114. 4m
£89.0m
£68.5m
£56.2m
-18%
Card ID theft
£36.9m
£30.5m
£31.9m
£34.1m
+7%
Mail non-receipt
£72.9m
£40.0m
£15.4 m
£10.2m
-34%
TOTAL
£504.8m
£439.4m
£427.0m
£535.2m
+25%

Contained within this total:
UK retailer (face-to-face transactions)
£218.8m
£135.9m
£72.1m
£73.0m
+1%
UK cash machine fraud
£74.6m
£65.8m
£62.0m
£35.0m
-44%

Domestic/International split of total figure:
UK fraud
£412.3m
£356.6m
£309.9m
£327.6m
+6%
Fraud abroad
£92.5m
£82.8m
£117.1m
£207.6m
+77%

Now, I know that's a lot of figures.

But the salient points to me are:

- contradicting what the article says, ATM fraud is down very dramatically - under 50% of what it was in 2004;
- lost or stolen card fraud is dramatically down on 2004 - not particularly surprising, as a UK CHIP & PIN card is far harder for a UK-based thief to use as they normally won't know the PIN;
- card ID theft is pretty much flat - so all the scaremongering from MBNA, for example, trying to sell identity theft insurance is just nonsense;
- mail non-receipt fraud is down over 75% - so the card issuers must be doing something right there, such as requiring most cards to be authorised on receipt;
- and the only material thing that's increasing is overseas card fraud, according to APACS because UK scammed card details are being used in non-CHIP and PIN enabled countries.

Now, the original article's premise was that CHIP & PIN would lead to customer losses increasing dramatically. I don't believe this is true. Overseas transactions are the most likely for banks to pick up, and the least likely for them to attempt to pin on their customers. The fraudulent transactions on my own cards were all abroad and that's why the banks involved picked them up. They didn't even ask me whether I'd just been to Saudi Arabia - they simply said "you've had some fraudulent transactions on your card; we will rebate them to you".

I'm not saying that there are no cases where customers are unfairly penalised by their banks, and held responsible for transactions which they are entirely unconnected with. And that's not a satisfactory state of affairs. But nor do I subscribe to a view which says that banks should assume everyone is innocent, and incur the fraud cost themselves even where there's more than a "balance of probabilities" case that the customer participated in the fraud.

At the end of the day, any customer who is held liable in this way can go through the bank's complaint process, and then take it to the FOS or go through the courts. And if the FOS or the courts take a different view on the balance of probabilities to the bank, they will uphold the customer's case.

[righty]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

1st where do you get the evidence that most card fraud is an inside job? - there is none - However there is evidence that most card fraud admitted is committed by professional thieves

2nd Where do you get the evidence that card fraud has been reduced since the advent of C&P - from the banks I suppose.

The evidence beginning to emerge is that companies are, as predicted, refusing to accept consumers complaints that they have been a victim & when someone accuses you that you must have done it, without a shred of evidence to back that accusation up, then it becomes almost impossible for the victim to prove a negative - & of course this is what the banks are relying on in order to justify denying liability thereby making everyone who's stupid enough to believe them that card fraud has declined

[argentarius]

Re: Is this the future to prevent card fraud?

As I said, I made up the statistics about the proportion of fraud which was cardholder or cardholder-affiliate undertaking the fraud.

I have quoted you the data on card fraud and shown the source. It's from APACS which is the relevant body. APACS is (IIRC) owned by the banks. The data will already have cardholder, or cardholder-affiliate, fraud deducted because the money won't have been lost - it will have been charged to the cardholder, in a large proportion of the cases. And it's not a figure they disclose separately.

I haven't disputed that most of the fraud admitted is committed by professional thieves. Isn't that obvious, because most of the fraud not committed by professional thieves is now (correctly) charged back to the account holder?

I've said that

I'm not saying that there are no cases where customers are unfairly penalised by their banks, and held responsible for transactions which they are entirely unconnected with. And that's not a satisfactory state of affairs. But nor do I subscribe to a view which says that banks should assume everyone is innocent, and incur the fraud cost themselves even where there's more than a "balance of probabilities" case that the customer participated in the fraud.

At the end of the day, any customer who is held liable in this way can go through the bank's complaint process, and then take it to the FOS or go through the courts. And if the FOS or the courts take a different view on the balance of probabilities to the bank, they will uphold the customer's case.

and I'm not sure what I can add to that.

Obviously the banks are not always right. And equally obviously, the customers are not always right. A balanced view needs to be taken.

And there necessarily won't be evidence available in all cases. Whoever takes the balanced view has to work with what is available.

As I've said, most "obvious" frauds are undertaken a long way from where the card details were scammed, and there's little hassle from the banks in accepting that these are not customer responsibility. But where an ATM card is used 2 miles from the customer's house, you have to accept that banks ought to show a degree of incredulity about the customer's claims of innocence.

I'll reiterate - any customer held liable for genuine fraud has every right to go to the FOS, or to use the courts. If they go to the FOS, it will cost them nothing (at present). I personally wouldn't hesitate to take one of those two courses of action if I was genuinely innocent, but was accused of ATM fraud by my bank.

I don't believe for a minute that you are right about the statistics. FOS haven't reported that they've had £40m worth of complaints from bank customers who have been held liable for ATM fraud (the amount of the reduction in frauds over the past 4 years). Presumably that's because they haven't had.