Talk:Smart card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Smart-card-based electronic purse systems (in which value is stored on the card chip, not in an externally recorded account) were tried throughout Europe from the mid-1990s, most notably in Germany (Geldkarte), Belgium (Proton), the Netherlands (Chipknip and Chipper), Switzerland ("Cash"), Sweden ("Cash"), UK ("Mondex") and Denmark ("Danmønt"). None of these programs attracted any notable public interest, and usage levels remained low to negligence."

What is this statement based on? I know it isn't true for the Netherlands (I don't know about the other countries). The "Chipknip" is used by a very large percentage of the Dutch population ever since it's introduction in 1996. Usage has never been "low to neglible". For example, if you ever visit this country you might notice that you can't even pay for car parking in some cities without having a Chipknip. Almost every shop here offers the possibility of paying with Chipknip. I suspect it is used more often than creditcards (of the non-PIN type).

The Chipknip was in fact a big failure in the Netherlands, where i happen to live. Even though most shops and such did provide the possibility to pay with Chipknip hardly anybody ever used this. A possible explanation for the wide availability is the fact that often the same device is used to pay with both Chipknip and PIN. (one device with a swipe card reader for PIN payments, and a Smart card reader for Chipknip). It is true that often you can only pay for parking through your chipknip, but this is actually a relatively new thing and most parking meters accept cash aswell. The Chipper was a (supposidly) chear alternative to the Chipknip which was released simultaniously by two Chipknip competitors: Postbank and KPN. This card however used different technology and was therefore imcompatible with the dutch bank system. Furthermore, the Chipknip is currently going out of use, and using it to pay in shops is usually no longer a possibility. In general, the Chipknip was found to be a impractical way of paying, as it requires you to transfer money to it first, after which you can spend it later. (it's basically a digital wallet). Also, it's a relatively unsafe way of using your money, since paying with a CHipknip does not require a PIC-code or any other kind of verification. (it merely requires the customer to press the 'OK' button on the payment-device, therefore anybody can use any card and spend the money on it. The Chipknip is not going to dissapear completely, bit will be still used on a smaller scale such as payments in office cantinas and hospitals. (vending machines and such) The dutch banks and the company exploiting the Chipknip (Currence) however have expressed their doubt about the future of the Chipknip, and with vending machines and parking meters (aswell as other appliances where the Chipknip was used) being equiped with other methods of payment (PIN, Credit card, mobile phone) it is very likely that the Chipknip will die out within the next few years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.165.105 (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Requested move

changing title to its standard (and more common) form

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

I agree that statement "None of these programs attracted any notable public interest, and usage levels remained low to negligible." is incorrect. This should be re-edited.
Add any additional comments

correct statement

[edit] Decision

Page moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I inserted the original comment. I worked with almost all European banks on their electronic purse rollouts, and was as saddened as anyone by their complete failure.The person who claimed that Chipknip usage has been high in the Netherlands since its introduction is clearly misinformed. Perhaps they are confused by the large amount of advertising done by the banks for Chipknip, as well as Telecom for Chipper. Although there are some implementations that seem fairly high-profile (the parking meters in Amsterdam) the percentage of all non-cash transactions Europe-wide carried out by electronic purse is much less than 1%. Most of the banks actively involved in electronic purse schemes in Europe are Savingsbanks owned by their local city or state;(Sparkassen, sparbanken, Caixia, etc.), and are of course somewhat shy about publishing the low usage rates and, consequently, the huge waste of public funds wasted on these card programs. VisaCash(all 4, incompatible versions of it):discontinued. Mondex: Discontinued. GeldKarte: usage so low its hard to track. The others I have lost track of. When e-purse cards were conceived, costs for telecommunications and processing were high, which made smartcard off-line transactions attractive. Since then, the steep drop in prices for these services have wiped out any economic justification for contact (Iso7816)based e-purse schemes. The success in the US of Mastercard's rfid (14443)PayPass program is something of an embarassment of riches, since it finally offers what the e-purses promised, but is in fact just a contactless creditcard transaction. (Also not EMV compliant. Sorry about that, all you UK banks that just invested zillions in the switchover. This time, we promise it will work!)

[edit] Splitting contactless cards

The page is a little long, and I think contact (ICC) cards and contactless (RFID) cards should have separate articles. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a short page at Contactless card that redirects to Proximity card. I think the material on the contactless cards section on this page should be used to expand that existing page, rather than creating another separate page. Zaian 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this article is that long. A well organized and sectioned article with a Table of Contents should allow this article to grow even more. In fact, I would recommend integrating other articles related to the subject (i.e., Proximity card etc), into this more general article on smart cards (i.e. cards with processor technology) because many are either evolutions or spawns of the smart card concept. HOWEVER, if you choose to separate these into separate articles -- I recommend a section called "Related card technologies," "Technologies Related to Smart Cards," or some such thing containing links to these other Wikipedia articles. (Wiki writer 22:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC))
I think the article should be split, the subject is too big in itself 81.179.234.128 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

More and more smart cards have dual-interface capabilities, with both contact and contactless data transmission leading to a single ICC. The distinguishing feature of the smart card is not the mode of transmission, but the increased capability and added information security that comes from the use of applications, data storage and cryptography. The infrastructure and business processes required to support the smart card are signicantly different from those supporting older contact or contactless interface cards. Splitting the smart card page on the basis of the interface lead to confusion.

Keeping both contact and contactless cards in the same page is more appropriate, as they share common underlying technology. 195.195.244.11 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


There should definitely be a separate article. The contactless smart card industry is growing, and has distinct concerns. Additionally, the overlap and relationship between pages needs to be clarified (it does not seem practical or useful for "contactless smart cards" to be the section of one article while "contactless card" redirects to a short and general article about proximity cards, and all pages lack adequate clarification and linking for related pages, technologies, etc.) Thinked 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cracking

It says that one reason for introducing smartcards is to cut down on fraud. Any info on why smartcards are so much more secure than normal swipe cards or whatever else? The bellman 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple: you have to type your PIN for the transaction to be authorized! And data may be encrypted inside the chip.
1)Smartcards do not automaticaly require a PIN; PIN could also be used for mag-stripe credit cards, as they are for debit.
2)Most of the added security benefit comes from the fact that a smartcard is much more difficult and expensive to copy than a magstripe card.
"Smartcards do not automaticaly require a PIN" : perhaps, but they should, as it's done in France. So the only way to obtain the PIN is to spy the user when typing it then steal his card, or to threaten him. And when a robber uses only the card number without the PIN, for example when purchasing on Internet, the card owner has a mandatory bank insurance which compensates him up to 7600 €. Wagner51 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow transport cards are not smart cards - only magnetic stripe

Moscow metro cards and mosgortrans cards are not smart cards. They do not have integrated circuitry and are just magnetic stripe cards. Hence these cards were removed from the list of smart transportation cards. They were also wrongly put under contactless section.

Moscow use both since September 1998. Elk Salmon 20:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New York MetroCards are also magnetic stripe, not the chip-on smart cards described here. The MetroCard page even mentions that there are plans to convert to smart cards in the near future. I'm removing NY from the table. Pjbflynn 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

At present, Moscow metro card is Mifare and Mifare UltraLight smart card. Parer cards with a magnetic strip used and are using. MikeKn 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seoul contactless smart card introduction

Hi, Seoul has had a contactless smartcard system for its metro since 2001, not 2004 as the list states. It was rebranded TMoney in 2004 and more advanced cards were introduced (the new card is aware of transfers from bus to train to allow discounts). But for a while both old and new cards continued to work. --JackSeoul 01:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York City Metrocard is not smart card

New York City's Metrocard is not a smart card. Instead it is a flimsy plastic card with a magnetic strip. However, they are working on a smart card. I suggest removing this from the table until they create one. >>And doesn't Macau have a smart card bus pass they use on buses. Saw it but I think its only for residents. Herenthere 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] São Paulo card solution is multi-vendor

I was chocked reading that "Bilhete Unico" have Digicon as provider. Having being worked over 2 year providing consultancy on the project, i have to say: this is a lie.

The provider and contractor and solution integrator, is SPTrans. Digicon, and many others were supliers of hardware, software, cards, services, ideas, etc, etc.

The major difference of São Paulo solution is that the main goal was to have an provider independent solution. Most other cities (or countries like Holland) chooses one provider and buy his solution.

This was a huge and complex work coordinating many companies, with different interests to share information and help to build an new solution, different that the one that he wants to sell.

I have write one article about the project, nominating many other along Digicon. And many other, that I can´t remember now, I will try to list on it.

Mmorsello 16:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of...

  • Article does not mention protocols. Smart card use protocols such as T=0 and T=1. -- Frap 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Transfer speeds. I believe to be like 9,600 to 115,200 bps.
  • Amount of capacity for storage space. I believe to be like 32-64kb.

look at ISO/IEC 7816 MikeKn 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy?

The sentence in the "Identification" section reading "Smart cards are a privacy-enhancing technology, for the subject carries possibly incriminating information about him all the time" is either overly opaque or nonsense, and I suggest removing it.

How does carrying "possibly incriminating evidence all the time" -- presumably referring to the information on the card -- confer greater privacy to the subject than the alternative (not carrying the information)?

If this sentence has a rational point it should be made far clearer. If not, cut it. Fenrisco 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The sentence does not make any sense. Actually smart cards are bad for privacy as it ties every card use to a person, in contrast to cash which is much better. -- -- Frap (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Card Fraud in Australia

I was amazed to see the following: "For example, in Australia the consumer bears the risk of credit card fraud, possibly explaining the lack of progress the banks have made in rolling out smartcards."

Who wrote this? It is nonsense! The liability varies according to the issuing institution, but in general it is the institution that bears the risk; not the consumer.

Unless someone comes up with evidence backing that assertion, I will delete it.JimBreen (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, no response, so I will remove that sentence. While I am at it, I will remove Australia from the "With the exception of countries such as the United States of America and Australia there has been significant progress...." All my recently issued cards have chips, and I am seeing increasing numbers of EMV-compliant POS machines.JimBreen (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensions / Protocols

Only ID-1 and ID-000 types are mentioned. Other available dimensions should also be listed (if possible with picture). Even non-standard card formats are in use (ID-1 with one or more strongly rounded corners).

More than the 3 listed card protocols are in use (S=8, S=9, S=10, or the one used for FeliCa cards)