"Bank cards without passwords are more secure." The so-called "security" here does not mean property security in the true sense, but means that the cardholder can more effectively avoid liability after the credit card is stolen. Reduce your own property losses and let banks or merchants bear more responsibilities. In other words, the so-called "no password is more secure" is only about responsibility sharing and has nothing to do with property security. At best, it is just a cardholder's trick to avoid responsibility.

Legally speaking, as long as a password is used during a card transaction, it will be deemed to have been done by the cardholder himself, and the bank will not be responsible for any losses incurred. If a credit card is stolen, the cardholder will be held responsible until they find out. Since transactions using passwords are deemed to have been made by the cardholder himself, neither the bank nor the merchant is responsible, and the loss can only be borne by the cardholder himself. Almost all banks' credit card regulations stipulate that "all transactions conducted using passwords are deemed to be made by the cardholder himself." The court will also make decisions based on this. For transactions conducted without using a password, the transaction voucher signed by the cardholder shall be the valid voucher for the transaction. In this regard, the "Bank Card Management Regulations" promulgated by the central bank clearly require acquiring merchants to bear the responsibility of verifying credit card signatures. If it is stolen, it is easy to verify the authenticity of the signature. At this time, the responsibility is transferred to the merchant who swiped the card, and the corresponding cardholder's responsibility is reduced to a minimum. This is why this industry insider said "it's more secure not to have a password."

From the original sense of things, it is obviously more unsafe to not set a password, and it requires the cardholder to keep it carefully. Once lost, it will be more likely to be stolen.

The starting point of "Bank cards without passwords are more secure" is not to strengthen one's own prevention, but out of a fluke that once the money in the card is lost, the bank will bear some responsibility. This is a wrong understanding. In fact, even if there is no password, the card issuing bank must bear corresponding responsibilities based on personal evidence and relevant conditions: First, report the loss within the specified time. At present, most bank card regulations stipulate that cardholders must report the loss to the bank within 24 hours or 48 hours after the card is stolen; secondly, report the case in a timely manner. It is also important to report the crime to the public security organs as soon as possible (in reality, many cardholders only discover that the funds in their bank card accounts have been stolen after a period of time). Third, the cardholder must provide evidence. It is difficult to prove that the signature was not written by the cardholder himself, especially if the card was stolen through the Internet, and it is even more difficult to prove it.

Bank cards are commonly known as electronic "wallets". It is the owner of the wallet who must take good care of them. The entire responsibility cannot be passed on to the wallet manufacturer. From this point of view, setting a password on a bank card is beneficial to the cardholder from any perspective. The funds on the bank card belong to them. Therefore, don’t be misled by “bank cards without passwords are more secure”.