flan wrote:Nonsense. Simply untrue. EMV cards and terminals negotiate what the acceptable authentication method is. A card can offer to do C+S or C+P, or both. If it does both, it an prefer one, but do the other if the terminal insists. Terminals have the same options. There are additional complications, a card can say "C&S is fine, except if the transaction is over $1000, C&P is required". or "C&S is fine, but every 12th transaction requires a pin". Terminals can do much of that, too.
The US won't get c&P by default, for the really good reason that it's slow, and no one will put up with it, because there is no upside. But that doesn't mean US banks won't issue cards capable of it. They're mostly not right now because there's no demand for it, and the cost differential is pretty high (several dollars a card, I'm told.). But the cost differential will go down with volume, and demand.
My issue isn't with the technology, it's with the US banks choosing the C&Sig model over the widely accepted and adopted C&PIN model.
While traveling in Europe last spring I was unable to utilize C & Sig. Every automated machine (transportation, vending, etc.) I tried to use required a PIN once it identified the onboard chip. If I inserted a card without a chip there was no issue. It forced me to use a card without a chip in order to make a purchase. Thanks to this I missed out on thousands of bonus UR points.
Likewise at retailers when I handed them the card they saw the chip and wondered why I didn't just use the machine, so they proceeded to insert it in their machine and expect me to key in my PIN; when I was unable to do this they had to swipe the card...yada, yada, yada.
My experience has also been that self inserting my card into a machine and entering my PIN is way faster than inserting and signing. I do have one card issued by USAA that is C&PIN and it is way more convenient to use in all scenarios. The downside is it is a card I prefer not to use as an everyday card and the rewards aren't as valuable.
My experiences, YMMV.