No, it does not even do that. It only weakens the signal.

It is not. A Faraday cage is great for shielding a static E field (for this, it is perfect if made form a perfect conductor or you wait infinitely long), but it does exactly nothing for shielding the B part. Hence a Faraday cage _weakens_ electromagnetic radiation, but it does not block it completely. What you need is proper EM-shielding, which can be accomplished with any conducting material, but effect is dependent on thickness.

It is fascinating though that you think a Faraday cage would give you 100% reliable protection, when it does no such thing. This exemplifies the real problem with IT security: Too many people that think they know what they are talking about, when in fact they have no clue.

And hence the proposed solution does work even less. You seem to have completely missed what I was talking about and that the UEL is completely irrelevant for my argument. "WTF" indeed.

But you know, UEL 100% nonsense. Wikipedia seems to have copied a rather obvious error. Looking it up, it turns out to be 80...82% and that explains why it is used in this fashion: It has an extremely wide working range as a fuel-air explosive.

I do stand corrected on the UEL though, even if that has zero impact on my point and your claim is just as wrong.

Yea, like the US had the first _electronic_ computer. This is just some verbal trickery to obscure the fact that the US is not a technology-leader at all...

Oh? Ever saw an ATM crash and display a BSOD? Quite often these are industrial PCs and they cannot take much more temperature as the CPUs are the limiting factor these days. And the mechanics have an even worse high-temperature behavior. It is not that things immediately stop to work, it is that every 10C halves the lifetime of components, and ATMs are _expensive_.

In Europe, there was a ruling that withdrawals at the Bank's own ATMs must be free, as the Bank is the one owing you money and cannot charge for paying you back.

It seems you cannot even read the articles you quote: "In simultaneous and independent efforts, engineers in Japan, Sweden, and Britain developed their own cash machines during the early 1960s." and "An experimental Bankograph was installed in New York City in 1961 by the City Bank of New York, but removed after six months due to the lack of customer acceptance.".

So not only was that 1961 in the US, it was a failure as well.

That assumes the US was first in these areas. It was not. It is just behind and has been for a long, long time. Why do you think the US government spends so much effort into drumming it into every US citizens head that the US is "world leader" and "best country", etc.? Because if the majority of the US population would realize how badly behind the US is, there would be civil war.

Indeed. In particular the whole US banking system is from the dark ages. In Europe, I have not used any any checks for two decades now and nobody does. Interbank-transfers are so cheap you do not even get billed for them anymore and all regular payments are electronic. The US is at least 2 decades behind in that area.

You really have no clue how these attacks work. If you steal/clone a primitive obsolete card as used in the US, you can clone it cheaply and just try the pin on any number of not-online ATMs until you have it. (Many rural ATMs are not online over the weekend.) Then you clone a few more and go on an ATM tour, and this time they can be online. That does not work at all with chip-based cards.

And you think that has not been tried? You just insulted all the engineers working on ATMs as utterly stupid morons.

Oh yeah, "if <thing you have no clue about> cannot handle <other thing you do not understand>", just demand that "they" fix it. Real mature.

Seriously? Ever though about the electronics and mechanics in there? Apparently not.

Customers do not encounter ATM bombings. Banks do.