Wasn't the separation of { number, expiration date } and { security CVV } on both sides a security feature? Why is VISA undoing this / what's the security rationale?
A. Is the CVV security number useless anyway nowadays?
B. Has taking pictures of both sides become easy to the average optical attacker, making CVVs moot?
C. Is it an economical calculation that CVV-on-back-of-card costs N seconds of CVV spelunking during the average purchase, thus costing $$$/year in abandoned-midway purchases?
D. Has fraud reached a low enough point where it simply no longer matters to shave some of it with defensive measures?
E. Variant: has fraud reached a low enough point where the cost of the mechanical process of back-of-card CVV printing exceeds the cost of fraud?
F. Does this policy vary by region? (e.g. is VISA doing this in disciplined Canada, but never will in the G. ??? I'd mostly bet on C; what do you think? Also, should I worry and complain, or is attempting to talk to a bank beating a dead horse?
You may remember (or maybe you don’t) that cards were embossed to enable carbon copy replicas, the method of generating receipts. Following that, the magnetic strip was added to allow an additional recording method. Similarly, the chip introduction has replaced the magnetic strip. With the strip and the chip, having the name and number on the front isn’t necessary any longer.
I suspect the threat of loss from shoulder-surfed cards is much lower than digital fraud, and this isn’t considered significant enough to make a difference.
And couldn't you see all that data on the back of the card anyway? The number and the name is embossed.