EMV

The goal of adopting chip cards — to provide tighter security — is a noble one. But by going partway, authorizing transactions with signatures rather than four-digit codes, banks are watering down that security, at least for lost and stolen cards.

A group of attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia have jumped into the debate over PIN versus signature requirements for EMV cards, choosing the side of retailers.

The glacial pace at which card providers and merchants are adding EMV chips to their cards and payments systems benefits no one, and opens new possibilities for card fraud.

With the EMV liability shift having just passed, banks and merchants alike are scrambling to comply with the card network-imposed deadline.

While migration to cards with chip technology should help mitigate card fraud, additional steps by retailers and more layers of security are needed.

EMV card technology has fully replaced traditional magnetic stripe cards in virtually all developed countries except the U.S. In these markets, it's proven to be an effective technology to reduce fraud for card-present transactions, forcing fraudsters to migrate to areas that have not adopted a chip-based payment system.

The U.S. might be ahead of the rest of the world in some areas of security, but when it comes to protecting against credit card fraud, we're way behind.

Credit card networks and issuers have done a poor job in explaining the implications of the just-passed Oct. 1 deadline for moving to EMV chip-and-PIN cards, leaving many small businesses confused, lawmakers said Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill.

Banks need to take a hard look at the age-old practice of using signatures to authenticate card payments, Federal Reserve Gov. Jerome Powell said Thursday.

Each time Elavon, a payments-processing unit of U.S. Bancorp, launches a new product, its R&D lab steals a page from rock 'n' roll history to mark the occasion.