advertisement
advertisement

This is page 3 of:

Google’s PIN Pains: Will Citi Make This Wallet Safer?

February 16th, 2012

How would that work? Would each card number get its own PIN (the way physical cards do)? Would Google Wallet have to keep track of how long each PIN has before it times out? It’s beginning to sound like Google will have to negotiate with multiple issuing banks, multiple card brands and multiple mobile carriers to make this work—and it’s already having trouble getting onebank to get with the program.

Where does all this leave retail chains who have signed up for Google Wallet—or, for that matter, any retailer who can accept contactless cards (since Google Wallet is supposed to behave like plastic for them, as well)? That’s unclear, too.

Consider: When a customer walks up to a POS and waves a Google Wallet phone, it may not be necessary for the customer to key in a PIN at the POS, even if it’s for a large purchase. That phone could have been stolen and the PIN cracked. Or it might have just been stolen minutes before, with the thief acting quickly to make a big fraudulent purchase before the PIN timeout expires. Does the retailer have card-fraud liability, because there was no physical authentication at the POS? Even Google doesn’t seem to be sure.

If retailers arein the clear, who’s liable? Is it the issuing bank that wouldn’t allow the PIN to be stored in the Secure Element? Is it the card processor that agreed to accept what the phone says instead of a number punched into a physical PIN pad? Is it Google, which decided to let PINs last for up to 30 minutes? Or will customers finally fall off the zero-liability turnip truck and have to pay for their own lax security habits?

That last one seems unlikely. According to a Google spokesperson, “Google is responsible for fraudulent losses not covered by Money Network [the processor], the consumer’s credit card company or the consumer’s financial institution that were a result of a security flaw in the application. The consumer’s liability is defined in the terms and conditions of the underlying payment account.”

That still doesn’t confirm that retailers are off the hook; just because a card brand or issuing bank nominally covers a fraud loss, that doesn’t mean card-brand fines won’t happen to siphon funds out of a retailer’s merchant account.

The good news in all this confusion is that the growing pains of Google Wallet will probably help all of Google’s competitors avoid the same problems. The less appealing news: Mobile payments clearly have a lot of growing to do.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.