From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance uk.legal
Subject: Re: Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:16:24 +0000 (UTC)

 wrote
> Signatures have better deniability.

No they don't - you can deny a transaction just as easily.


 wrote
> It is hard to forge a signature well, ...

You don't need to do it "well".
A signature doesn't have to be an *exact* copy of what
is on the back of the card - for instance, some people's
signatures come out different every time they sign.  All a
fraudster would need to do is make a mark that looks like
**any one** of the many marks that you make when you sign!

 wrote
> ... especially without having the original in front of you...

A thief who has stolen your card, *does* have a copy
of the original "in front of him" - on the back of the card.

 wrote
> ... The other point is that you cannot be held
> negligent for having the signature on the card, ...

That's because it is part of the normal use of the card...

 wrote
> ... whereas I would expect to have
> a hard time explaining to the bank
> that I was not negligent with a PIN...

You shouldn't be expecting that.  Part of the
"normal use" of the card is to have it inserted
into any number of retailer's equipment - it is
therefore not negligent to use it at a retailer.

But one of the retailers might have dodgy equipment
hooked up at POS, even though it is *reasonable*
for the customer to assume that it's legit....

This shows that it *is* possible for the PIN to have
been compromised, *without* negligence on your part.