I was going to say such advice does have its limits. Then I remembered something: even though my current credit card does have a chip, the design suggests that it is primarily intended as a record of a "user id" and "password" (e.g. large easy to read numbers, rather than the embossed numbers intended to make impressions upon carbon copy forms that typically became impossible to read with wear).
Not exactly. Some transactions are cryptographically authenticated. "The algorithm" looks at those bits. Transactions with proper chips authentication are less likely to be flagged as fraud
Also the embossed numbers are not that common in countries outside the US. For quite a while the numbers themselves are also disappearing from the front. (If you even use the physical card rather than your phone)
I remember being mind-blown on my first trip to the US when a taxi driver took my card and literally carbon copied it manually (with a pencil and carbon copy booklet) on the spot.
I had been using my credit card for at least a decade (Europe) and it never ever occured to me that the embossed letters had any function other than aesthetic.
I had a food delivery guy use one in the US 2012/2013. It was like seeing a native tribe perform their traditional dance. It still blows my mind that chip + "signature" is a thing in the US. What good is a random indiscernible scribble on a tiny resistive touch screen as far as proving anything?
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it is also illegal to steal someone's credit card and use it. If you have already done that, I don't think the idea of scribbling illegally is going to warn anyone off. Chip+PIN is objectively far more secure. People used debit cards with swipe+PIN for decades just fine and chip+PIN is used in many other countries without an issue. It is just silly to keep using signature and acting like it does absolutely anything at all.
