Contactless payment jackets

[munchie]

PIN is only used for "cardholder present" transactions. For "CNP" (cardholder nor present) transactions, such as telephone orders, you don't need the PIN, so the card would still be functional without it in a CNP situation.

ah. didn't think about online/phone transactions.

i use my wallet to cover the pin pad. haven't triggered any contactless problem yet. aren't contactless and card payment two separate options (on the tills/terminals) that have to be selected prior to actually making the payment? haven't paid any attention to that bit so not sure. but i would have also thought that inserting the card would automatically disable nfc for that particular payment?

amex? thought a lot of places don't accept that? (mostly small shops i guess)

i imagine the reason why banks don't allow disablement is down the fact that they are trying to "promote" contactless and make people get used to it, over cash payment. didn't i read that contactless option is to be made mandatory from 2020 or so? (presumably for anything that takes card)

[jas88]

i use my wallet to cover the pin pad. haven't triggered any contactless problem yet. aren't contactless and card payment two separate options (on the tills/terminals) that have to be selected prior to actually making the payment? haven't paid any attention to that bit so not sure. but i would have also thought that inserting the card would automatically disable nfc for that particular payment?

amex? thought a lot of places don't accept that? (mostly small shops i guess)

i imagine the reason why banks don't allow disablement is down the fact that they are trying to "promote" contactless and make people get used to it, over cash payment. didn't i read that contactless option is to be made mandatory from 2020 or so? (presumably for anything that takes card)

No, usually the retailer enters the price, then the terminal sits waiting to be fed. However, once you put your card in (or swipe it, for magnetic stripe users) it switches to waiting for a PIN - at that point, it'll ignore any contactless card, because it's already talking to your chip about the payment. If you put the wallet there too soon, though (for example, before the card is fully in) you might be surprised to find you've just paid by a different card without a PIN.

Most of the places I shop take it fine (railway, supermarkets, petrol stations); small shops and restaurants don't always, and - oddly - Burger King, even though McDonalds does. I use mine everywhere I can, because I get 1% back on all my Amex spending, nothing of consequence on Visa or MC except during special promotions.

I can often go for a week or more now without a single cash transaction (the campus shop at work takes cards for £3 or more, but oddly the attached coffee shop is cash only). Personally, I prefer that: each month, I can see exactly where and when every penny of spending went on a single list (well, two, for the two cards).

[Ttaskmaster]

I'm in the Saracen club.
NOT happening. They will just have to close my account and stuff it up themselves while I go somewhere else. I'll go completely back to cash, if I have to.

[DanceswithUnix]

i imagine the reason why banks don't allow disablement is down the fact that they are trying to "promote" contactless and make people get used to it, over cash payment. didn't i read that contactless option is to be made mandatory from 2020 or so? (presumably for anything that takes card)

I don't believe they allowed for it.

A lot of the transaction is under control of the chip on the card. That one chip runs contactless and contact, they are different ways into the same EMV protocols.

If enough people quit, and I expect it would have to be a very large number, then you might see cards made where they miss off the antenna or something so that part doesn't work. Otherwise, mass production will mean everyone gets the same thing because removing a feature costs because it is a special measure.

Edit to add: What you need is two cards for your account. If you could carefully rip apart one contactless card you should be able to see where the antenna is wound into the card. Carefully drilling the other with a really thin drill bit should then sever the antenna connection, and then use your Airfix modelling techniques to rebuild the drilled card so you can't tell (the first one is a write-off). Use NFC on your smartphone to see if you can still detect the card is readable

[Saracen]

I don't believe they allowed for it.

A lot of the transaction is under control of the chip on the card. That one chip runs contactless and contact, they are different ways into the same EMV protocols.

If enough people quit, and I expect it would have to be a very large number, then you might see cards made where they miss off the antenna or something so that part doesn't work. Otherwise, mass production will mean everyone gets the same thing because removing a feature costs because it is a special measure.

I don't buy the "didn't allow for it" argument. Here's why.

Firstly, both my debit and credit (the card referred to above) are from the same high street bank. They will issue a non-contactless debit card, if you request it, though the default is contactless for replacements, and presumably, new cards. But they flat out won't for credit cards. It's only an inference on my part, but I take that as suggestive of it being the card issuer, I.e. Visa/Mastercard, refusing, not the high street bank that's simply branding it.

Also, I can buy the notion that a contactless card doesn't have a protocol for having it turned off, except that there's all sorts of accounts on the net for disabling the contactless bit, such as cutting a little slot which, if in the right place, cuts the antenna loop, without which contactless won't work. At which point, it drops back to chip 'n' pin. That tells me the bank's systems still handle chip 'n' pin, and they could issue card with no contactless. But "they" won't. Not cannot, but will not. I assume "they" to probably be visa/mastercard, not Lloyds, Natwest, Barclays, etc.

A couple of months before they refused to issue a non-contactless credit card, I'd had the same conversation over debit cards, and no problem, they deactivated the contactless card and sent a new non-contactless card. And commented ... "we've had a LOT of requests for that". I suspect the CS helper probably shouldn't have said that to me.

So, when the credit card arrived, I expected a similar short conversation and a new card. But nope. Yet, in that same conversation, when I mentioned what happened over the debit card, the nice lady I was talking to confirmed they still replace contactless debit cards, if requested.

Quite why you can't get (some banks) to issue non-contactless cards I can only guess, but that guess would be as follows .... major financial institutions, like visa/mastercard, get paid if and only if a transaction uses their card. Therefore, their holy grail is the end to the existence of cash, and every transaction, big or small, goes through them. That will only happen if a widespread, very widely adopted micro-transaction system exists that can effectively replace cash.

And that is contactless rechnology, be it cards, some mobile phone-based NFC capability and app, or whatever.

The end objective, IMHO, is the end of cash.

And I can see two wholly undesirable and objectionable immediate problems with that.

First, if every transaction goes through a card issuer's computers, so does a vastly extended and vastly more granular level of detail on your life. You won't be able to buy a coffee without visa/mastercard etc knowing when, where, which shops, what time's of day etc, and very possibly, as a next step, what flavour you like. It's a privacy disaster in the making. Maybe some people don't care, and fair enough. But I do.

Second, if there's no cash and you can't buy a coffee with an NFC card, what happens when someone applies for a card and "computer says no"?

Do we REALLY want some huge, faceless (and probably US) corporation having that level of control over, or even knowledge of, our lives? Again, maybe some people don't care, and fair enough, use contactless. But again, I do.

[The Hand]

Barclays and Barclaycard are nagging me to enable contactless on my cards, but the fact that they are, just reminds it's obviously more for their benefit rather than mine!

[herulach]

I don't buy the "didn't allow for it" argument. Here's why.

Firstly, both my debit and credit (the card referred to above) are from the same high street bank. They will issue a non-contactless debit card, if you request it, though the default is contactless for replacements, and presumably, new cards. But they flat out won't for credit cards. It's only an inference on my part, but I take that as suggestive of it being the card issuer, I.e. Visa/Mastercard, refusing, not the high street bank that's simply branding it.

Also, I can buy the notion that a contactless card doesn't have a protocol for having it turned off, except that there's all sorts of accounts on the net for disabling the contactless bit, such as cutting a little slot which, if in the right place, cuts the antenna loop, without which contactless won't work. At which point, it drops back to chip 'n' pin. That tells me the bank's systems still handle chip 'n' pin, and they could issue card with no contactless. But "they" won't. Not cannot, but will not. I assume "they" to probably be visa/mastercard, not Lloyds, Natwest, Barclays, etc.

A couple of months before they refused to issue a non-contactless credit card, I'd had the same conversation over debit cards, and no problem, they deactivated the contactless card and sent a new non-contactless card. And commented ... "we've had a LOT of requests for that". I suspect the CS helper probably shouldn't have said that to me.

So, when the credit card arrived, I expected a similar short conversation and a new card. But nope. Yet, in that same conversation, when I mentioned what happened over the debit card, the nice lady I was talking to confirmed they still replace contactless debit cards, if requested.

Quite why you can't get (some banks) to issue non-contactless cards I can only guess, but that guess would be as follows .... major financial institutions, like visa/mastercard, get paid if and only if a transaction uses their card. Therefore, their holy grail is the end to the existence of cash, and every transaction, big or small, goes through them. That will only happen if a widespread, very widely adopted micro-transaction system exists that can effectively replace cash.

And that is contactless rechnology, be it cards, some mobile phone-based NFC capability and app, or whatever.

The end objective, IMHO, is the end of cash.

And I can see two wholly undesirable and objectionable immediate problems with that.

First, if every transaction goes through a card issuer's computers, so does a vastly extended and vastly more granular level of detail on your life. You won't be aboe to buy a coffee without visa/mastercard etc knowing when, where, which shops, what time's of day etc, and very possibly, as a next step, what flavour you like. It's a privacy disaster in the making. Maybe some people don't care, and fair enough. But I do.

Second, if there's no cash and you can't buy a coffee with an NFC card, what happens when someone applies for a card and "computer says no"?

Do we REALLY want some huge, faceless (and probably US) corporation having that level of control over, or even knowledge of, our lives? Again, maybe some people don't care, and fair enough, use contactless. But again, I do.

A lot of it comes down to the actual chip in use, a lot of card printers have switched over to fully contactless cardstock, if the bank's contract to supply the cards is with one of those then there won't be any non contactless cards to issue.

Regarding the financial incentives, you're absolutely right. Banks (and visa, amex, MC) all earn money from interchange when you use your card. Conversly it costs the bank money for you to use cash (costs of a branch to issue it, or costs to link/atm owner to get it out there). The end of cash is absolutely the aim, although I suspect won't happen. THat being said its not just a bank issue. Nearly every business I deal with (and I do this kind of thing for a living) would rather accept card or bank transfer than cash. Other than for very low value transactions its simply not worth the cost of processing (insurance, staff time, shrinkage, couriers etc). For a lot of businesses that will add up to more than the cost of accepting even credit cards, never mind debit.

[DanceswithUnix]

A lot of it comes down to the actual chip in use, a lot of card printers have switched over to fully contactless cardstock, if the bank's contract to supply the cards is with one of those then there won't be any non contactless cards to issue.

Exactly, everyone gets what the majority want thanks to mass production.

Saracen, have you looked at pre-paid visa cards? Can be theoretically tied back to you if you if you have fixed home and workplace and use it in both locations, but they seem to start quite anonymously.

[TheAnimus]

Barclays and Barclaycard are nagging me to enable contactless on my cards, but the fact that they are, just reminds it's obviously more for their benefit rather than mine!

The world doesn't work that way.

It's for your benefit that the merchants face lower costs of business, that barclays get to take more transaction fees, many places find that the contactless merchant fees are lower than the cost of handling cash, which can be a very expensive undertaking.

So just because someone wants to profit from you, doesn't mean it's not in your interest to let them.

[herulach]

Exactly, everyone gets what the majority want thanks to mass production.

Saracen, have you looked at pre-paid visa cards? Can be theoretically tied back to you if you if you have fixed home and workplace and use it in both locations, but they seem to start quite anonymously.

Prepaid comes with significant additional cost or isn't anonymous. The ones that work like gift cards typically have purchase fees (around 6-7%) and the online only (free) ones, require registration. As you might expect, regulation is designed to make it rather difficult to move money around without some form of audit trail. Assuming you don't work for cash the best you'll get is withdrawing your wages once a month, all bills over the counter at po (although you'd often be asked for ID then as well) and pay for everything in cash. It'd be a massive PITA, and TBH rather pointless, since you'd still (presumably) be registered to vote, have electricity etc.

[Saracen]

Personally I don't get all the paranoia about it. Contact less payments have made my life so much easier.
Who's ever actually had a card read or the details fraudulently taken due to the NFC element? Horror stories a plenty, but looking for less scaremongering actual facts! Compared to taking details over the phone, people emailing them, or posting pictures online (yes it's happened!) I suspect the percentage is quite small. Plus it's capped and any rogue charges refunded.

In certain circumstances I'd say not having to even get a wallet out of your pocket might be advantageous! Even with the variations of mobile payment brandishing a phone could make you an easy target.

What paranoia?

If they've made your life easier, great, I'm happy for you. They will not make my life easier.

Why not? Because that's not how I use credit cards. I use credit cards infrequently, for large transactions where the CCA s.75 protection is useful, and for occasional use abroad or hotel/car hire reservations, or very occasionally, online transactions. Probably three months out of four, my statement balance is £0. When there is a balance, it's generally fairly big. And sometimes very big. But I don't remember the ladt time my statement had more than three or four items on it. It's certainly years.

In fact, the only reason I had that card at all if because my bank manager approached me about having one, when I was arranging a sizeable balance transfer begween two different bank accounts. Prior to that, I'd spend several years without a credit card at all. So, not only do I know I can manage quite well without one, but am in the habit of using it rarely, and VERY selectively. There are no circumstances, none at all, where I have, or want to, use a card or payment processing system for trivial amounts, for many years. Well, at least two decades.

It's not paranoia.

It's partly about preserving privacy. It's also laziness, extended to an advanced level. It's about not wanting to faff about paying bills without hoid reason. Or checking statements for dodgy transactions. I had that in the past when my card was nicked (in the post on the way to me) and it's a pain.

But mainly, I don't want the hassle of arguing with banks over irregular transactions, as to whether they're authorised or not. If you think you're guaranteed rogue charges will be refunded, I'd suggest to reread the T&C's with a more cynical hat on.

I have personal experience of that argument, even in the days of mag stripe and sign. Charges appeared on my statement that were not mine. Bear in mind, I'm an accountant, was at the time working for one of the UK's largest chartered accountancy firms, in their London HQ, and had to submit detailed expense claims, with evidence. So I checked my statements thoroughly. Expense claim errors were not a good idea, in that job.

It turned out a restaurant had messed up card swipes with the wtong amounts. I'd checked the amount, but not that the restaurant had put the right amount on my card, so I ended up signing for the right amount on skmeone else's card, and they signed mine. When the statement arrived, a couple of amounts I had no charge slips for were on it. I disputed the charges (you had to write in, not just phone) only to be told they'd checked, and everything was correct. I wrote back saying I HAD NOT authorised any such charges, tjough had ate in that restaurant. The bank wrote back again saying they'd checked afain, and the charges were correct, and this time, enclosed a copy of the charge slip.

The charge slip clearly showed my card impression, and the utterly clear and legible signature of a completely different person. I wrote back again (third letter, by this point) suggesting that if their "checks" on queried transactions were so poor that not once, but twice, they hadn't noticed the card was signed by someone else altogether (see note) , I was going to commence signing my receipts "Mickey Mouse" seeing as signatures obviously didn't matter, and that name seemed apt for the standards exercised by their staff verifying queried transactions.

They refunded the charges, with an apology.

But it took about three months, one phone call and three letters.

So when I say it's laziness, I mean I don't want the RISK of disputed charges over a facility I KNOW I will not use, and don't want, even if I do eventually get my money back, because firect personal experience tells me it can be a hassle even if you succeed. And there's no guarantee you will. Read the T&C's carefully, about where liability lies, and bear in mind tgat in the above story, I had cast-iron proof of the restaurant's error, because I had a slip with my signature and, when I checked, someone else's name on the card, and the bank supplied a copy of my card with the wrong amount and someone else's signature.

I had the bank dead cold. And perhaps they gave in and refunded because, the exact same evidence proved negligence by the restaurant (a pizza place in Birmingham, IIRC) so no doubt, the bank reversed the charges back on them, and it cost the bank nothing.


Note. Once I saw the signature, I checked the slips I had that weren't on the statement, and found the mirror image, my amount and signature, someone else's name, which was one of the colleagues I had dinner with, and everything clicked into place. It was cockup, not fraud. Nonetheless, it was a considerable hassle getting the bank to see it, despite their alleged "checks".

[Saracen]

...

Edit to add: What you need is two cards for your account. If you could carefully rip apart one contactless card you should be able to see where the antenna is wound into the card. Carefully drilling the other with a really thin drill bit should then sever the antenna connection, and then use your Airfix modelling techniques to rebuild the drilled card so you can't tell (the first one is a write-off). Use NFC on your smartphone to see if you can still detect the card is readable

I considered something like that.

Problem 1 - I'd already closed the account when I though of it. Did that when they refused to replace the card.

Problem 2 - It's a fair bit of faffing about. I'd rather go to a different bank or, failing that, do without a credit card at all. Damn things are dangerous, after all.

Problem 3 - Smartphone? This is me, remember? What smartphone?

[peterb]

Contactless payments are very convenient in a couple of situations and can save money. One is at parking meters, most meters in Southampton take contactless card payments, and anyone who has fished around pockets for sufficient coinage to make an exact payment will appreciate that! Another is on the London Underground. For infrequent visitors who don't want cash tied up in an Oyster card, a contactless credit or debit card fare is much less than buying a ticket for the same journey.

I have found myself using contactless cards for small payments more frequently in the last year or so - more convenient than having to find a cash dispenser and carry cash around and for small transactions quicker than using chip and pin. Cash is getting harder to get hold of!

[Lucio]

Don't trust contactless payments and never will. Just got a contactless card issued and already know my bank is a stupid waste of space that doesn't offer a choice so cut a huge chunk out to be sure.

[Top_gun]

Contactless payment jacket is a stupid idea. First of all, I refuse to pay a premium for such a jacket. Secondly, I think it would take a certain kind of idiot to leave their jacket in the cloakroom where anyone could steal it. Thirdly, leaves you wide open to fraudsters who are able to clone your payment details from a distance and make fraudulent transactions.

As a born and bred Londoner, I'm pretty used to contactless payment but only use it in situations to where I can get a paper receipt and my card is kept in an aluminium case as preventative measure against snoopers. Oyster card/ payment cards are mandatory on public transport. I don't particularly trust this method of payment but at least you're able to check your payments online or at a ticket machine.

[Saracen]

Contactless payments are very convenient in a couple of situations and can save money. One is at parking meters, most meters in Southampton take contactless card payments, and anyone who has fished around pockets for sufficient coinage to make an exact payment will appreciate that! Another is on the London Underground. For infrequent visitors who don't want cash tied up in an Oyster card, a contactless credit or debit card fare is much less than buying a ticket for the same journey.

I have found myself using contactless cards for small payments more frequently in the last year or so - more convenient than having to find a cash dispenser and carry cash around and for small transactions quicker than using chip and pin. Cash is getting harder to get hold of!

I've yet to experience any difficulty getting hold of cash. I keep a supply at home, for a start, and top up from that. Anybody planning on nicking it better bring a search team. And a packed lunch. Not that there's enough to make it worthwhile. I top that up from the bank when I pop in a couple of times a month to pay bills. I very rarely use pay car parks, in Southampton or anywhere else. On principle.

As for London, one-day Travelcard works for me. Not that I go to London any more than I need, and can possibly help, not least because despite being a born and bred Londoner, I despise the dump. The last time something enticed me in was, oh, a good five years ago. Probably ten.

So a Travelcard might, and depending on itinerary, I repeat might cost a bit more, but a few quid once every five or ten years .... not something to entice me into contactless payment schemes. I'd rather just stop going to London. It'd take something truly exceptional to tempt me, and if the Queen or Prime Minister want to Knight me, or make me a Lord (seeing as it seems to be contagious at the moment), well, I'm sure their minions can inform them where they can find me.

As I said, some people may find them convenient. I don't. And short of something close to being given one at gunpoint, the banks can firmly insert them in their own you-know-where.

If I can't get a non-contactless credit card, so be it. I can and will just do without one at all. Problem solved.