0

I'm from germany where I have to "access" my money mostly by using a pin. (except for a credit card where I just had to put in the card at all (no signature was requested nor a PIN)

But this post: https://money.stackexchange.com/q/60824/32249

made me wonder why the banks prefer provide the service of using signature over PIN?

I never really was seeing the signature as an protection at all, more so as an confirmation of a transaction.

And I don't really get, how they can rely on this. When I steal a card in the USA how would the signature step prevent me from making fraud of it?

What am I not seeing here?

Community
  • 1
Zaibis
  • 711
  • 1
  • 4
  • 16
  • I think the question you are linking as an answer for your question already. Why asking it there? – M'vy Feb 25 '16 at 08:40
  • @M'vy: I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry. But my question is why a signature is even an security messure at all. While they just explain why no one in the USA likes to remember PIN's maybe I don't see the answer in it since I'm not aware of how payment and money withdraw in the USA is handled at all. but I'm here actually just asking for what reason a signature is a security messure. And what would differ if they just made the signature beeing not neccessary at all. And thats not what I see getting answered there in any aspect. – Zaibis Feb 25 '16 at 08:46

1 Answers1

1

I'm from germany where I have to "access" my money mostly by using a pin.

In germany both PIN and signature are heavily used if you use your card for paying. The reason is cost vs. risk: To get a signature is both faster and I think also cheaper for the vendor but the risk of cheating is higher. With PIN the risk is reduced but the costs are higher. Thus PIN is commonly required in high risk or high price environments where cheating causes more harm (like buying a computer or TV) while in lower risk or lower value environments (food store) a signature is often enough.

Steffen Ullrich
  • 190,458
  • 29
  • 381
  • 434