3C's
Footballguy
It would help stop fraud with my card.But if it's not required, it won't help stop fraud.I'm OK with not required but would definitely consider it if offered.OK. Then the problem I see is on-line merchants are unlikely to require that any time soon. They won't want to inconvenience customers. It reminds me of the failure of Verified by Visa.3C said:The article is talking about using NFC built into smart phones. Mine has it built in.Who would pay for the NFC equipment?3C said:This touches on online fraud and what I asked above. And methods that could be used to hinder fraudulent use with CNP. I thought of the USB option but the NFC sounds like a good idea.
http://www.csoonline.com/article/2134340/malware-cybercrime/shift-to-emv-cards-expected-to-increase-online-fraud.html
Some methods I was thinking of to entice people to use some device on their end for extra security. Offer a lower interest rate for those who purchase and use (key) a device which offers an extra layer of security. Another would be to pass on some liability if a card is used fraudulently and the user doesn't own/use NFC or a usb reader.
Truth is though, the way they're working the chip into brick and mortar could also be used for online purchases. If they don't comply with chip readers and there's fraudulent use the merchant can be held liable instead of the issuer. If they make Amazon liable for fraudulent purchases when they don't require extra authentication, Amazon will fix that quickly.