Any banker types know if US credit cards ever plan to convert to chip plus pin in lieu of signature? Seems out of step with the rest of the world, and AMEX seems to show zero interest in the conversion.

Why? I love signature, so much faster. I hate typing in my PIN when using cards. I just scribble my initials and am on my way.

Why? I love signature, so much faster. I hate typing in my PIN when using cards. I just scribble my initials and am on my way.

Mainly for the issue of travel outside the US.

Edmond Hausfrau,
I have travelled to Europe 8 or 9 times and have never had a problem.
C. T.
p.s. Mostly Great Britain.

Why? I love signature, so much faster. I hate typing in my PIN when using cards. I just scribble my initials and am on my way.

Yeah, that's the problem. If you're scribbling your initials and not your actual signature and it's getting accepted, then if someone steals your card they can scribble whatever they like and their transaction will also be accepted. With a PIN, at least there's some degree of safeguard against someone trying to use a card they found on the ground somewhere.

I used to work at a casino, and whenever we would reject someone's signature for not matching what was on their ID (which we were required to do by management), they would often get mad and argue instead of just doing it over and actually putting some degree of effort into putting their real signature down. That kind of behavior leads to cashiers getting complacent and just accepting whatever gets scribbled into the box, which makes it more likely that a fraudulent transaction will go through if the "signature" is supposed to be a verification of the cardholder's identity.

Yeah, that's the problem. If you're scribbling your initials and not your actual signature and it's getting accepted, then if someone steals your card they can scribble whatever they like and their transaction will also be accepted. With a PIN, at least there's some degree of safeguard against someone trying to use a card they found on the ground somewhere.

I used to work at a casino, and whenever we would reject someone's signature for not matching what was on their ID (which we were required to do by management), they would often get mad and argue instead of just doing it over and actually putting some degree of effort into putting their real signature down. That kind of behavior leads to cashiers getting complacent and just accepting whatever gets scribbled into the box, which makes it more likely that a fraudulent transaction will go through if the "signature" is supposed to be a verification of the cardholder's identity.

That is the bank's problem; not mine. I dispute the transaction, report the card stolen. They write it off as a loss and send me a new card. That is why PINs are good for debit accounts as that is MY money they are stealing. If someone steals my credit card, it is the BANKs money they are stealing. Clearly, if it was costing them enough they would change their practices. Until then it is faster for me to tap and sign, instead of insert and type in numbers.

That is the bank's problem; not mine. I dispute the transaction, report the card stolen. They write it off as a loss and send me a new card. That is why PINs are good for debit accounts as that is MY money they are stealing. If someone steals my credit card, it is the BANKs money they are stealing. Clearly, if it was costing them enough they would change their practices. Until then it is faster for me to tap and sign, instead of insert and type in numbers.

Actually, as of a few years ago, it's the bank's problem only for a chip and PIN transaction. For a signature transaction, it's the merchant's problem, because the bank will come after them for the money in the event of a fraudulent sale. The merchant is considered at fault for not verifying the signature. With a chip and PIN transaction, the customer providing a valid PIN is considered adequate verification on the merchant's part so they are not held to be at fault.

The change in this policy is why you saw a sudden shift to chip cards a few years back (because merchants didn't want to get stuck with the loss). And where I worked, if you paid out a transaction that later came back fraudulent, the business would come after the employee to pay back the amount of the transaction or else be terminated.

For a signature transaction, it's the merchant's problem, because the bank will come after them for the money in the event of a fraudulent sale. The merchant is considered at fault for not verifying the signature.
Google says as of 2018 merchants are no longer required to collect a signature, and will not be liable for fraud as long as it's a chip transaction.
https://www.bankcardusa.com/emv-liability-shift-and-nixed-signature-rule/
https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/documents/visa-nosigflyer-us-can-040518.pdf

My older debit card says "not valid unless signed" but my new credit card just has an unlabeled rectangle on the back. There's nothing about a signature needing to be there. And when you sign up for a credit card these days, you don't submit your signature to the company so they have no idea what my signature looks like. And the quality of my signature varies dramatically depending on whether I'm signing on regular paper, thermal receipt paper, or a touchscreen. Most electronic signature pads are so bad they can't possibly be useful for any sort of verification.

My new credit card has the "blink" technology but it rarely works, although sometimes I've been told I'm not placing it correctly.

Mainly for the issue of travel outside the US.

My experiences in Europe were that I had to insert the chip. enter the pin and sign and show my ID. This was in England, Paris, Italy and Amsterdam over the previous few years (obviously not in 2020)

I haven't had issues in Europe using CC w/signature EXCEPT in Berlin, Germany a few years ago. The train station automated ticket kiosks only accepted either cash or a card+PIN, so my American credit cards did not work there.

Food, hotels, anything with people involved. Never been a problem... but I think having the option for a PIN would be very useful

In Europe I just used Apple Pay or my tap credit card. Didn’t need anything from me. Only time I had trouble was the train station. Had to use my debit with PIN and they checked my signature on the back of the card. This was 2018.

I've found that more often than not, I don't even have to sign.

Pretty crazy.

I've found that more often than not, I don't even have to sign.

Pretty crazy.

i mean, to prove how much it didn't matter. i have now exclusively signed "John Hancock" for my name on those pads for just over 3 years now..... correction, not exclusively... at one of the breweries i go to, i sign it "Herbie Hancock"...

i mean, to prove how much it didn't matter. i have now exclusively signed "John Hancock" for my name on those pads for just over 3 years now..... correction, not exclusively... at one of the breweries i go to, i sign it "Herbie Hancock"...

Honestly - that isn't a terrible strategy because it would be a no-brainer to prove fraud. The one time the signature says your real name would be an easy argument that you did not represent the transaction. They would probably try and sign your name or scribble your initials.

Honestly - that isn't a terrible strategy because it would be a no-brainer to prove fraud. The one time the signature says your real name would be an easy argument that you did not represent the transaction. They would probably try and sign your name or scribble your initials.

When I worked at Walmart in high school, I met several people that used that strategy. One lady just signed with a smiley face.

I drew a house once and it didn't go through. Stopped doing that since. It's been about 15 years.