[grandalf]

Does it follow from this that manual carbon copy "imprint" machines are not eligible for card present rates?

This may sound dumb, but why not just put this additional security code in a bar code or QR code somewhere on the surface of the card to allow for the equivalent security using a camera to read the card?

[ramidarigaz]

I think it's for the same reason the just using the number increases the rate. It allows someone to snap a picture of your card without ever having to touch it. The magnetic strip adds a bit of complexity to getting the data off the card.

[pbreit]

No, the opposite. A manual imprint is even more indicative of card-present than a mag-stripe read (which can be easily faked).

Reading QR or other codes with a smartphone's camera is extremely cumbersome whereas swiping a mag-stripe is simple and reliable.

[grandalf]

I totally don't agree with your assessment of what is simple and reliable. I've had the mag stripe fail on numerous hotel room keys and a few credit cards over the years. A QR code is readable even if somewhat scuffed, etc.

It would seem that with a small investment in a magnetic stripe writer and a plastic mould, any scammer could create cards that could fool an imprint swiper or magnetic stripe reader.

Further, wouldn't a signature make all of the above close to equivalent?

[pbreit]

I can't even remember the last time my credit card couldn't be swiped. What do you do to them?

True, but still even easier to duplicate a QR code.

Signatures don't help very much since the fraudster can sign his own fake card. That's why more stores are asking to see drivers licenses which is annoying.