Cui bono?

Adverts have started appearing in the press reminding us that, as from next February, you will have to use your PIN number with your "chip and pin" card - you will no longer have the option of signing instead. The chip and pin system has been sold to us on the basis that it (a) helps prevent fraud and (b) apart from having to key in a four-digit number instead of signing, makes no difference to us, the consumer. Well, (a) may be true, but what about (b)? It seems to me that it potentially makes a big difference to us. Consider - you get your credit card statement and see to your horror that several large purchases appear on it which you haven't made. You query them. Under the old system, it would be for the credit card company to show that you had made those purchases. They would do this by producing the chits that you had signed, and if those signatures were not yours, you would be able to demonstrate that. But under the chip and pin system, all the credit card company would have to show is that your pin number was used, and how ever much you may protest your innocence, that as far as they are concerned would be conclusive. So in cases like this, chip and pin has actually shifted the onus of proof from the company to the consumer, and as, if your pin number was in fact used, it will be virtually impossible for you to show that it was not used by you, or by somebody with your permission, or as a result of you disclosing it - possibly accidentally - to somebody else, your chances of success are pretty slim. So let's not kid ourselves, chip and pin's main benefits are for the credit companies, not us.