I have an idea

Bail · Sun 22 May, 2005 19.48

Best thing is proove youve thought of it, copyright it to make sure it is yours for now (the old recorded mail thing), then ask and find out, if they steal it you'll have proof its been nicked. Best bet would be your local library I'd guess.

Jamez · Sun 22 May, 2005 20.16

Cock-Rings have already been invented, Mark.

DJF · Sun 22 May, 2005 20.20

You could try having a look at http://www.inventorsinfopoint.co.uk/

It looks as though it's aimed for NW England but it has more links on the right hand side for the UK

Aston · Sun 22 May, 2005 20.24

Bail wrote:Best thing is proove youve thought of it, copyright it to make sure it is yours for now (the old recorded mail thing), then ask and find out, if they steal it you'll have proof its been nicked. Best bet would be your local library I'd guess.

Apparently the recorded mail thing doesn't stand up any more. You *could* simply post yourself an empty, unstuck envelope and then pop in whatever you wanted at a later date.

Let us know how you get on Mark!

alowerevil · Sun 22 May, 2005 22.30

On the topic of 'ideas'... I don't suppose anyone reading this has any advanced knowledge of 'Chip and PIN' systems' workings do they? (More specifically the ICC on the card). I've just had an idea of how someone with the intention of commiting credit card fraud could circumvent this recently introduced 'security' measure and would be interested to know whether or not it could theoretically work.... Hmmm.....

Bail · Mon 23 May, 2005 11.59

Chip and Pin is much worse IMO. Now you can see someones pin, if you're up to no good you watch and old lady tap it in, follow her round the corner, nick the card and then take as much as you can from a cashpoint. Its stupid.

alowerevil · Mon 23 May, 2005 13.06

In my experience of working as a cashier with Chip and PIN terminals, I have noticed....

*mod edit*

Gavin Scott · Mon 23 May, 2005 14.08

Sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot allow information which could be used for card fraud to be published here.

I will say though that your observation was quite right - and it certainly is a loophole which can be taken advantage of.

Part of the recent changes means that the liability for fraud moves from the card issuers to the retailer themselves. Frankly this is outrageous and appalling, especially in light of the millions made by banks.

That is part of the reason I have edited your post. I wouldn't want small businesses being hit by fraud *they* have to pay for as a result.

I'm sure you understand.

Mich · Mon 23 May, 2005 14.14

No, no, no, no!

The method of defrauding Chip & Pin isn't anything groundbreaking, and it essentially defrauding the old system.

Retailers will only have to pay for fraud if they have not installed Chip & Pin. If Chip & Pin is installed they will not be liable for fraud even if the signature is used when the chip has failed.

It is all basically part of an incentive scheme to get retailers to install Chip & Pin, which is no bad thing.

Gavin Scott · Mon 23 May, 2005 14.25

Mich wrote:No, no, no, no!

The method of defrauding Chip & Pin isn't anything groundbreaking, and it essentially defrauding the old system.

Retailers will only have to pay for fraud if they have not installed Chip & Pin. If Chip & Pin is installed they will not be liable for fraud even if the signature is used when the chip has failed.

It is all basically part of an incentive scheme to get retailers to install Chip & Pin, which is no bad thing.

That is not the case I can assure you. ALL liability has shifted away from issuers to vendors, and vendors have no say in whether chip & pin is installed or not.

I took rather lengthy consultations with the bank over this matter, so I know my information is correct.

That said, there is still a world of misinformation out there, as the banks are reticent to spend money on a campaign which might inform the public.

Typical.

alowerevil · Mon 23 May, 2005 14.37

Mich wrote: ...The method of defrauding Chip & Pin isn't anything groundbreaking, and it essentially defrauding the old system...

Exactly 'Mich', which is why I didn't think it would cause concern to the moderators as its such an obvious loophole that I can't believe the banks have left open. But I accept that Gavin's decision to remove the content of my previous post and understand that he needs to be cautious about what he allows to be posted here for legal reasons.

Anyway, a system like this one recently introduced in a US grocery chain seems to make a lot more sense security-wise, and allows store owners to cut out the processing fee credit companies charge for each transaction.