> So let them have it, why should I care and endure security risk?
Because banks the world over are notoriously slow about doing anything that might nudge even a fraction of a percentage of customers over to a competitor. If they removed magnetic stripes (which, in the short run, would cost a bank money because that's a specialty card) and said "just contact us if you're going to the States and we'll overnight you a States-compatible card, no questions asked," nothing would stop a competitor from running adverts that say "why wait 24 hours and worry about not getting your card? We issue cards that work in the United States from day one!" Now the person who made the decision to delete the magstripe from cards issued by the first bank is out of a job and so now you see why his or her interests didn't line up with yours.
It's the same reason why chip-and-PIN isn't primary in the United States; chip-and-sign is. Over here, customers have been trained that entering a PIN means the money comes out of a checking (draft/demand/deposit) account while signing means it goes "on the card." Trying to get that mindset changed is more costly than just eating the potential stolen-card-being-used-before-being-shut-down fraud for most issuers.
(Some credit unions, primarily catering to people who travel overseas, and smaller banks that want to differentiate themselves are issuing PIN-primary cards but they are definitely in the minority. I happen to have cards from three of them--First Tech, Spokane Teacher's, and Target--for reasons of security and international use but I am also in the minority. Amusingly, it's large merchants who want PIN-based cards because it puts the onus on the cardholder, not the merchant.)
Because they could instead sell it as "an unskimmable card!". Many people I know have had their cards preemptively replaced by their bank because it was used at a store/ATM where other cards were skimmed. Avoiding worries/hassles like that could be a selling point.
Because banks the world over are notoriously slow about doing anything that might nudge even a fraction of a percentage of customers over to a competitor. If they removed magnetic stripes (which, in the short run, would cost a bank money because that's a specialty card) and said "just contact us if you're going to the States and we'll overnight you a States-compatible card, no questions asked," nothing would stop a competitor from running adverts that say "why wait 24 hours and worry about not getting your card? We issue cards that work in the United States from day one!" Now the person who made the decision to delete the magstripe from cards issued by the first bank is out of a job and so now you see why his or her interests didn't line up with yours.
It's the same reason why chip-and-PIN isn't primary in the United States; chip-and-sign is. Over here, customers have been trained that entering a PIN means the money comes out of a checking (draft/demand/deposit) account while signing means it goes "on the card." Trying to get that mindset changed is more costly than just eating the potential stolen-card-being-used-before-being-shut-down fraud for most issuers.
(Some credit unions, primarily catering to people who travel overseas, and smaller banks that want to differentiate themselves are issuing PIN-primary cards but they are definitely in the minority. I happen to have cards from three of them--First Tech, Spokane Teacher's, and Target--for reasons of security and international use but I am also in the minority. Amusingly, it's large merchants who want PIN-based cards because it puts the onus on the cardholder, not the merchant.)