CC-Interact
CC-Interact
I hope this is the forum for this
Just received from a friend. If this is true - I DON'T WANT one.
bbt
Just received from a friend. If this is true - I DON'T WANT one.
bbt
Re: CC-Interact
I don't think this is the right forum for this. Try a US forum where the CCindustry is more loose.
For the fun of it...Keith
Re: CC-Interact
kcowan - I am not sure of that - I checked my CIBC online account today and it show a new Aeroplan crd - WITH the new attachment (quick pass) on the card.
bbt
bbt
Re: CC-Interact
Mine has it as well. From what I've read there is no real security for them in Canada.
newguy
newguy
Re: CC-Interact
Along with my tinfoil hat I shall now wrap my CC's & I act cards.
bbt
bbt
Re: CC-Interact
Has anyone got one of these cards in Canada?bekair wrote:kcowan - I am not sure of that - I checked my CIBC online account today and it show a new Aeroplan crd - WITH the new attachment (quick pass) on the card.
bbt
For the fun of it...Keith
Re: CC-Interact
If you mean with RFID then yes, all of ours have them. (CIBC and TD)kcowan wrote:Has anyone got one of these cards in Canada?
newguy
Re: CC-Interact
Most CCs do, I use Paypass/Paywave at the grocery store and gas station(at the pump) all the time. My 2 main reward CCs have rfid. It's been around for at least 2 or 3 years. It will only work up to a certain cash limit. Also, anything above $50 at Lowlaws still requires a signature which kind of defeats the convenience angle.kcowan wrote:Has anyone got one of these cards in Canada?bekair wrote:kcowan - I am not sure of that - I checked my CIBC online account today and it show a new Aeroplan crd - WITH the new attachment (quick pass) on the card.
bbt
Not nearly as prevalent for debit cards so far.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 616
- Joined: 04 Dec 2010 20:39
Re: CC-Interact
Security is an issue, but the CC companies will reimburse unauthorized charges. What bugs me is that they can now follow me around the store, and track my shopping pattern. Or know that I have participated in a rally against OAS changes.
I also wonder if there are health risks with carrying RF emitting transmitters right against your body?
I guess I will be buying some protective sleeves from http://www.idstronghold.com/.
I also wonder if there are health risks with carrying RF emitting transmitters right against your body?
I guess I will be buying some protective sleeves from http://www.idstronghold.com/.
- westinvest
- Contributor
- Posts: 898
- Joined: 22 Feb 2005 01:17
- Location: Okanagan
Re: CC-Interact
The RFID chips do not emit RF energy, they are "read" by an RFID reader.
Re: CC-Interact
I watched the video. Remind me not to take my wallet out and place it on a black electronic device held by a stranger.
Regards,
Pickles
Pickles
Re: CC-Interact
The Nexus card (to cross into the US without using your passport each time) comes in a lined sleeve, so that data can't be stolen.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29493
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: CC-Interact
How to foil electronic pickpockets
If you have two cards with RFID chips in your wallet, the scanner can't read them because they confuse the information and cancel each other out...
If you're still worried about getting ripped off by someone invading your space with a notepad-like scanner, here's a tried-and-true precautionary move: Put a piece of aluminum foil in your wallet.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
-
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: 23 Feb 2005 10:04
Re: CC-Interact
Bylo- I don't think putting the foil in your wallet sends the same message as wearing it as a hat does.
suzy
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: CC-Interact
Isn't there something in a foil wrapper that fits in a wallet?......
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29493
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: CC-Interact
The purpose of the foil, in both cases, is to not send the message.flywaysuzy wrote:Bylo- I don't think putting the foil in your wallet sends the same message as wearing it as a hat does.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29493
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: CC-Interact
Make that, in all three cases...Shakespeare wrote:Isn't there something in a foil wrapper that fits in a wallet?......
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 616
- Joined: 04 Dec 2010 20:39
Re: CC-Interact
Has anyone tried using the RFID blocking wallets from the 2 links upthread? The flipside one is so 'cool' looking that I may get it regardless.
[Edit] I have confirmed that the tin foil trick works. I normally leave the office proximity card in my wallet, and just wave the wallet in front of the sensor, and it lets me into the building. When I line the inside the wallet with tin foil and leave the wallet closed, it no longer lets me into the building.
[Edit] I have confirmed that the tin foil trick works. I normally leave the office proximity card in my wallet, and just wave the wallet in front of the sensor, and it lets me into the building. When I line the inside the wallet with tin foil and leave the wallet closed, it no longer lets me into the building.
Re: CC-Interact
I'm a little late to this topic but here it goes. I just had my credit card replaced after seeing some fraudulent charges on my last statement. What a pain. Apparently my new visa comes with payWave technology. There's nothing to set up. Once the card is activated for normal use, the payWave pinless feature is enabled, whether I want it or not.
I called my bank to ask them who's responsible in the event of unauthorized transactions using the payWave function in the event my card is lost or stolen. The agent I spoke to said not to worry, I would not be held responsible, even for charges made by another party BEFORE I get around to reporting my card lost or stolen. I checked the cardholder agreement and there it clearly says I am responsible for all charges, up until I report the card missing. Who do I believe?
Anyway, just wondered if anyone else has any actual experience with unauthorized transactions using the payWave or Pay Pass functions. A few times I've left my card behind in the merchant terminal reader after completing a purchase at a store. So far I've been lucky that I've been able to back track and find the card still at the store, but it seems likely that sooner or later unauthorized card use will happen.
I called my bank to ask them who's responsible in the event of unauthorized transactions using the payWave function in the event my card is lost or stolen. The agent I spoke to said not to worry, I would not be held responsible, even for charges made by another party BEFORE I get around to reporting my card lost or stolen. I checked the cardholder agreement and there it clearly says I am responsible for all charges, up until I report the card missing. Who do I believe?
Anyway, just wondered if anyone else has any actual experience with unauthorized transactions using the payWave or Pay Pass functions. A few times I've left my card behind in the merchant terminal reader after completing a purchase at a store. So far I've been lucky that I've been able to back track and find the card still at the store, but it seems likely that sooner or later unauthorized card use will happen.
Re: CC-Interact
Have had payWave/PayPass enabled cards for going on 2? years with no issues at all. I use this feature whenever I can.
I suspect CC companies are NOT going to quibble over the small transactions that might be placed by unauthorized use (usually limited to $50 or less transactions). There is not enough money involved. That said, I suspect their computer algorithms would freeze the card if several small transactions started appearing in fairly quick succession (well above and beyond my purchasing pattern). Given the processing power of computers these days, the programmers can program all sorts of flags on just about anything.
I suspect CC companies are NOT going to quibble over the small transactions that might be placed by unauthorized use (usually limited to $50 or less transactions). There is not enough money involved. That said, I suspect their computer algorithms would freeze the card if several small transactions started appearing in fairly quick succession (well above and beyond my purchasing pattern). Given the processing power of computers these days, the programmers can program all sorts of flags on just about anything.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
Re: CC-Interact
Yah, I'm probably being a little paranoid. I agree the banks will probably just eat the fraud as a good will gesture or maybe figure out a way to make the merchants consumers pay for it. They seem to want everyone to buy their milk, lotto tickets & sundry small purchases on credit, and will sweep the fraud under the carpet as much as possible to maintain confidence in the system.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29493
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: CC-Interact
The banks have to protect themselves from people who are careless(*), irresponsible(**) and/or intentionally try to defraud them. My interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that if you don't give them reason to believe you're in those sorts of categories they'll indemnify you from all unauthorized transactions, before and after your notification. Yes, that means you have to trust them—just like they have to trust you when they give you the card.abose wrote:I called my bank to ask them who's responsible in the event of unauthorized transactions using the payWave function in the event my card is lost or stolen. The agent I spoke to said not to worry, I would not be held responsible, even for charges made by another party BEFORE I get around to reporting my card lost or stolen. I checked the cardholder agreement and there it clearly says I am responsible for all charges, up until I report the card missing. Who do I believe?
(*) e.g. "A few times I've left my card behind in the merchant terminal reader after completing a purchase at a store."
(**) e.g. people who write their PIN number on the back of the card or on a slip of paper in their wallet.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: CC-Interact
I had the recent misfortune to have my CC info stolen (not from me, but from a careless merchant I had provided it to via telephone). The CC did indeed idemnify me from all the fraudulent transactions. I also gleaned from some of the back and forth that the CC company screws the defauded merchant - since one of the merchants protested a specific claim and I had to fill out some additional paperwork certifying that I had not made that particluar purchase (the other dozen or so fraudulent transactions they just took my word for it). Based on this I sense the CC compay just doesn't pay out the merchant for a bogus transation, although there are likely complicating factors that I am not aware of.Bylo Selhi wrote:The banks have to protect themselves from people who are careless(*), irresponsible(**) and/or intentionally try to defraud them. My interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that if you don't give them reason to believe you're in those sorts of categories they'll indemnify you from all unauthorized transactions, before and after your notification. Yes, that means you have to trust them—just like they have to trust you when they give you the card.
Re: CC-Interact
Our liquor store waived mine once just to show me and I said I would rather enter the pin while he was bagging. I can see why a smartphone app would be more secure than a PIN-less bank card. Do the banks really know what they are doing?
For the fun of it...Keith