Home > Identity Theft > Visa’s Chief Risk Officer on the Future of Credit Card Fraud

Comments 0 Comments

If and when consumers begin receiving credit cards with embedded chips en masse from their banks, it’ll mark a significant change in the way Americans pay for things. Visa’s Chief Risk Officer, Ellen Richey, told me in an exclusive interview recently that for many consumers, the only change will be “swiping vs. dipping.”  And while adding chips will bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the world, chips alone won’t really do much to stop credit card fraud.  Here’s my Q&A with her on the future of credit cards and fraud.

Is this “Chip & Something” thing really happening? When?

We will have widespread chip adoption, but it does take time to get those cards out into the market. We are talking about several years before we see significant impact, for sure.  But the momentum is there. You don’t see key players backing off or letting the enthusiasm wane.

So when popular imagination moves on from the Target hack, you don’t think the momentum for converting cards will disappear, too?

In the past there’s been a lot of publicity around data breaches for a short period of time. But this time, the combination of publicity and the moment that we’re at (makes a difference). The rest of the world has gone in this direction.

Is the U.S. targeted by hackers because our payment card technology is behind the times?

We do see criminals attacking the U.S. This trend so obvious. As far as being able to achieve a large data theft where you can turn stolen data into counterfeit cards, the U.S. is the prime target.

One potential holdup: Merchants are backing a “chip and PIN” system like the one in Europe, which would require a change in consumer behavior. Banks seem to favor “chip and signature” because it could be implemented faster and not require new consumer behavior. Where does Visa stand?

Our primary objective is for chip deployment to be as seamless as possible. We are not promoting one way or the other. Our objective is to get chip cards out there; “chip and choice” is our recommendation.

What’s your best guess about chip and PIN vs. chip and signature?

I can’t answer. We will have to let it play out.

Why don’t we just switch to card and PIN? That is, just make credit card consumers use PINs the way debit card users do? Isn’t that simpler?

Static data is the problem we are having. Now, you can steal the magnetic stripe data out of a database and make a counterfeit card. If you have just PINs and magnetic stripes, these are two types of static data.

And criminals would focus a lot of attention on getting their hands on PINs, making them ultimately less secure?

Right. They would shift focus toward attacking PINs.

That’s a good transition point. One criticism of converting to chip and pin/signature is that it does nothing to stop “card not present” fraud, such as with online shopping. Won’t chip cards just shift criminals’ focus online?

Yes. We have seen in other markets where they didn’t take additional steps to secure the online environment, that’s exactly what happens. But we’ve also seen, as in the UK, in places where they adopted additional measures to secure online transactions, absolute fraud rates did dip.

In other words, online merchants will have a big target on their backs the day that consumers get chip cards, right?

That’s why we have created a new standard for a new technology, tokenization, that would replace card numbers (in online transactions) with a set of meaningless numbers that couldn’t be used elsewhere…We will be publishing the formal tokenization standard soon.

What could halt or significantly slow chip card adoption? Isn’t the pin/signature debate going to slow things down?

In the past we might have seen bickering take precedent over security, but I don’t think we will now.  I don’t think we will see a groundswell for mandating PIN acceptance…so that won’t be an impediment.

There’s also been talking about the Durbin Amendment, which requires that merchants have choices in how they process transactions, causing a delay in programming required for merchants to accept chip cards.

In the last month we reached a resolution of all those debates (with the major payment networks), so we think that impediment with be lifted.

What about ATMs? Will they need to accept chip cards?

ATMs are a more expensive proposition, which is why we’ve given them extra time. By 2017, there will be a global liability shift and we’ll see ATMs that take chip cards.

When will most Americans get chip cards?

There are already are 7 million chip cards in the U.S. market, mostly sent to consumers who travel overseas a lot… It’s more likely most consumers will see them with their card renewal. The jury is out about when, but I would expect by October of next year you will see a lot of them.

And what will change? What will consumers need to know?

Once they get a chip card, there might a little confusion right at beginning. If you reach out to swipe a card along the side of a terminal, instead you will be instructed to just dip it in, like at an ATM, and that’s it. If you do it wrong, the machine will tell you.

Merchants that don’t have chip readers will still take magnetic stripe swipes, right? The cards will still have stripes, won’t they?

Yes.  Consumers should just read the instructions that come with a card… I don’t think it’ll be too confusing.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: Suradin Suradingura

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team