Are PINs always needed for paying with card?
There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online.  The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification.  However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem. As far as I'm aware, PINs are only used for in-person transactions, not 'remote' (over the Internet or phone). "For the first part of your question; Refer to related question  Why do some online stores not ask for the 3-digit code on the back of my credit card? The other case of Airport ticket machines, requires the physical presence of card. The assumption is that if you had the card before and after the transaction, it was you who used it for transaction. As the amounts are small its really easy by anyone [merchant, Banks] to write this off. The only way to misuse would be if you lost the card and someone used it. Also these ticket machines would have built in feature where by you cannot buy more than ""X"" tickets for the day. Ensuring max loss on a stolen card is limited to a small amount." Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them.  Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them.  Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway). Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan.  Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business.  Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly.  It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well. Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security.  Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises.  You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard.  Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase?  So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions.  PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement).
A more updated answer: USAA is an American bank offering chip and pin credit cards to US customers.  USAA membership is restricted to military service members and their relatives, but according to this Los Angeles Times article, you do not need to be a USAA member to get a USAA chip and pin credit card. I'm a USAA member and can testify that my USAA chip and pin MasterCard worked in Europe, so assuming nonmembers get the same kind of card, it will work.  However, it's worth noting that for it to work, the place still has to accept MasterCard, which seems somewhat less common in Europe than in the USA.  (In Germany in particular, I was rather baffled to find that many places only accept some other European bank cards but not MasterCard/VISA.) &gt;&gt; Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter...  &gt; I'm not especially fond of that, but it's easy to report fraud to the bank and most of the time the bank will reverse the charges.  No kidding! Of course, even I give credit cards to waiters. What do I care? **As you said, you are not liable to any fraud on your credit card.** None at all!!!!  It's only Merchant, not the credit card company, that pay the price for fraud... **and you pay higher prices to cover for losses from fraud.**  &gt; The PIN situation is different because a mugging is life-threatening.  Nonsense! Mugging at the ATM is so rare, each ATM has a camera. **In any case, I am not talking about using PIN to withdraw money!** I am talking about PIN to authorize charges on a credit card or ATM card.  &gt;&gt; We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them.  &gt; You can't use a stolen card at an ATM with a signature.  Huh? You totally got it wrong what I said, or, you argue for the sake of argument.  **I am saying that cards that require you to enter a PIN cannot be used used when stolen or copied. Yes or no?**  **On the other hand, cards that require signature can be used when stolen or copied because signature is a worthless method to validate the charge. Yes or no?**  LASTLY, my Costco credit card has a picture of me on it. **Question for you, since for some reason you argue so much against PINs: Wouldn't a picture on the card better than a signature?** Yes or no?  Do you see? There are so many ways to make this system so much more secure and fraud proof... but, ON PURPOSE, the credit card companies don't want that... because they are not liable for fraud. Simple as that. A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.) But this isn't cash though, its credit card. They'll just chargeback and we have to now report it to the police for stolen items. But we followed the general procedure, and the thieves had the pin of the CC which is why I'm a bit confused. Now we still have to verify the signature, but if the signature ends up being right should we get the money back? Because at this point the CC holder should be a lot more responsible about the CC and other people shouldn't know their PIN. If anything the signature is understandable cause you can just forge it since its in the back of the card. Probably not. I say probably because your credit card's terms of service may treat certain purchases (I'm thinking buying traveler's checks off-hand) as cash advances. See also this question. CitiBank offers a chip card.  It's not a chip and pin, but a chip and sign, however it worked well for my all transations.  Just call and ask for a 'world credit card' with a chip. https://creditcards.citi.com/credit-cards/citi-thankyou-premier-card/ There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit.  Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card.  This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards.  If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not. Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder.  If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment.  Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card. Of course, store employees rarely know all these things.  Some will gladly accept an unsigned card.  Some will try to make you show your ID.