Maybe. The chip holds more data than the strip, making the new cards less likely to be used in fraud by fake card readers. That was the impetus years ago for the switch years ago. But you're right, that we continually see these stories about the silly people putting the chips in their hands.
That they can get data from the chip without putting it into a card reader only concerns me in that data can be taken from my cards at a distance. They sell wallets that block this, but I am not sure it's a problem unless you're close.
I don't know about the order of this. I think it's more likely that the idea of "tap-to-pay" was invented first, and then the idea of chips in the hand developed naturally from it.
I wouldn't want such a thing in me. There's no point.
Maybe. The chip holds more data than the strip, making the new cards less likely to be used in fraud by fake card readers. That was the impetus years ago for the switch years ago. But you're right, that we continually see these stories about the silly people putting the chips in their hands.
That they can get data from the chip without putting it into a card reader only concerns me in that data can be taken from my cards at a distance. They sell wallets that block this, but I am not sure it's a problem unless you're close.
The hand or the forehead. #neuralink
I don't know about the order of this. I think it's more likely that the idea of "tap-to-pay" was invented first, and then the idea of chips in the hand developed naturally from it.
I wouldn't want such a thing in me. There's no point.
The hand probably would cause more problems. Neck or shoulder identification makes more sense with phones being payment processors and cards.