Me, too. Found http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/chip-pin-vs-chip-signatur...

"Most card issuing banks and Visa don’t want PINs because the PINs can be stolen and used with the magnetic stripe data on the same cards (that also have a chip card) to withdraw cash from ATM machines. Banks eat the ATM fraud costs. This scenario has happened with the roll-out of chip cards with PIN – in Europe and in Canada."

> My experience in Europe has been with Chip and PIN, I wonder why we're gravitating toward Chip and Signature.

Americans love credit cards and those who use them tend to have a lot of them. I personally have six credit cards and three debit cards (and, yes, I have a reason for having each card). My father has a wallet more than 1 in (2.5 cm) thick from all the cards he carries. According to the Boston Fed the average cardholding consumer had 4.0 credit cards and 1.6 debit cards in 2012[1]. Forcing people to memorize a PIN for each card they have would discourage people from signing up for more than one or two cards which would be a nightmare scenario for the credit card industry.

[1] http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/rdr/2014/rdr1401.pdf (page 92, table 11)

Chip and pin isn't any more secure than chip and sign, and is a greater hassle. For a while, merchant banks would deny fraud claims from skimmers claiming that the victim must have let the fraudster know the pin. However, as the card has to be on the magstrip as a backup, it's trivial to clone a pin. A friend had to fight for a fraud claim on her card a few years back, with the bank giving her that line. thankfully, she is dyslexic, and has chip and sign as an accommodation, so she was finally able to get enough words in for the rep to check her account flags and realize there was no way in hell she gave a pin to anyone, because her account doesn't have a pin attached to it. Chip and sign cards have pins on them for various silly reasons, even if there is no way it would ever be used.