This question already has an answer here:
I understand why credit cards with embedded chips are more secure (since they generate one time codes), but does this affect the added security benefits provided by the chip? Can cards still be cloned as long as they have magnetic strips, even if a chip is present, because of this?
Obviously some locations don't have chip-enabled terminals yet, so embedded chips can't be used for transactions everywhere. However, because of this, the card is still able to be read via magnetic strip (and thus able to be copied, since all the magnetic strip does is provide the card information unencrypted, no?).
For example, couldn't a thief install a credit card reader of his own at the point-of-sale, accumulate card data from people that way, and then duplicate people's cards to use? How can the chip prevent scenarios like this if it's not required (and magnetic strip can be used instead)?
Edit: The article suggested that answers this post, doesn't. It touches on the subject but doesn't provide a full answer. It says:
"..the magnetic stripe and the chip are used in two different ways, and having both does not mean that the security is lowered to the security of the weaker of the two. ...chips are better, because they are more efficient (no need to handle a network call) and harder to clone (statistics show a fraud rate divided by about 10)."
It explains why most transitional cards have both, but doesn't provide many details about security advantages or disadvantages of pin/chip (separately or together). Why doesn't the magnetic strip compromise the security provided by the chip, especially if the chip is compromised somehow? It seems to, so my question still remains. The article suggested as answering this post, just simply doesn't.
Also, korockinout13's answer (https://security.stackexchange.com/a/136416/52840) seemed to tell me what I wanted to know, but it seems to have been downvoted a lot, which seems odd considering it seemed to answer my question.