Completely off topic

[woodstock]

No, you didn't...but all of the other folks I've known who have used the "See ID" business have written it in place of the signature. They thought it was enforceable for some reason.

I think asking for IDs for card usage makes sense. To me, anyway - which is why I wrote it on mine. Do I get asked? Not often. Which means it is probably meaningless ANYWAY.

 

[Matthew]

Anymore, most places I've been to have swipe-it-yourself card readers at the checkout lanes. Other than being in a restaurant when I've handed it to the waiter/waitress, it's been a long time since anybody has even looked at my card when I've made a purchase.

 

[kevin47881]

That only relates to an unsigned card however.

So you signed it and ALSO said "check ID?

Here's what the merchant agreement says regarding "check id" in lieu of signature:

"Some customers write "see ID" or "ask for ID" in the signature panel, thinking that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not on the card, a fraudster may not be able to forge it..."See ID or "ask for id" is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer must sign the card in your presence, as stated above".

 

[flyersfan31]

Sign it and put "Check ID" on it. I have my id checked 99% of the time, and I always thank them. Simply put, a signature is meaningless. Anyone can copy one - checkout clerks are not forensic handwriting experts. I want the to look at the name on the card, and the picture and name on the ID to make sure it's the same guy. It's a very basic safeguard.

A friend of mine had his wallet stolen from his jacket at work. 2hrs later he realized it, after he had spend $6800 on audio/visual equipment in Center City. Checking the photo ID would have nipped that right off.

I showed my "check ID" credit card, sans signature, at the Post Office. I was told "Sorry sir, I can't accept that, it's not signed." "But I'm offering you a government-issued identification with my name AND PHOTO on it - that's not better than a little scrawl in a small box that any child could duplicate?" "No, sir." "OK, I'll be back in a minute" Voila -- a signed credit card.

 

[westslopeco]

Please note that a merchat checking ID before accepting a cc only would stop ONE type of fraud, where your actual card is stolen. Most fraud occurs when the magenetic stripe data is stolen from merchants unsecured (or poorly secured) database (note that it is against Visa regs to store the complete mag stripe data, but many software packages do just that). Fraudsters, using the stolen mag stripe data, can produce counterfiet cards, with anyones name on it, and they will be read just fine on the merchants card reader. If the merchant, in this case, asks for ID, the name on the card would match the ID. Most of the really big cc fraud cases that have made the news in the last few years have been exactly this type.

These schemes have cost banks many MILLIONS of dollars in the last few years. Fraud where the actual card is stolen is a very small part of the total cc fraud perpetrated today.

 

[jmaynard]

I showed my "check ID" credit card, sans signature, at the Post Office. I was told "Sorry sir, I can't accept that, it's not signed." "But I'm offering you a government-issued identification with my name AND PHOTO on it - that's not better than a little scrawl in a small box that any child could duplicate?" "No, sir." "OK, I'll be back in a minute" Voila -- a signed credit card.

That's because federal law requires the card to be signed before it's valid.

 

[sba55]

Ron - I was referring to the fact that merchants are not qualified to check IDs. In other words, it would be easy to make an ID that would convince them. That aside, merchants really don't want the additional liability. Right now, all they have to do in order for MC/V to pay them is to check that the signatures match. If they do, they'll get paid, even if the card is stolen. If the burden to proof that the card is used by an authorized person is shifted to the merchants, their liability will rise immensely.

Sam - I agree, it's quite annoying that we as customers have to force merchants to live up to their contractual obligations....another one is that minimum charge for credit card scheme. It's against their contract. That one is easier to deal with, though - let them add the additional charge to bring your amount up to the minimum and then dispute it. They usually don't want to have to pay the charge back fee again.

Bob, there are lots of reasons why one wouldn't want to show ID. For example, I certaintly don't want the average Home Depot salesperson to know my DOB, address, DL#, etc. ID theft is already a big problem. Quite a few state Attorney Generals actually advice consumers not to disclose any personal information, including ID, for credit card transactions. In your situation, you would not have prevented the thief from charging your card even if ALL merchants checked ID. There are lots of ways to charge a CC without even the opportunity for an ID check (and that's assuming merchants were able to effectively check IDs, which they aren't).

Look, the CC companies have made the decision for us. If you want to write 'check ID' on your card, please do so. Just be aware that if someone were to steal the card, they could still refuse to provide ID and the merchant would still have to process the charge (and 99% of them will). Personally, if I had a problem with a contract that stipulated that IDs must not be required for purchases, I would simply not use that provider. But if you're using MC/V, that's the way the contract goes. I believe Amex/Discover has a different merchant contract (though I believe Amex prohibits requiring ID if the merchant also accepts MC/V - not sure).

-Felix

 

[etsisk]

Right, but in actuality, it doesn't make a difference since a simple 'no thanks' will work just as well as your ID. Besides, you're not liable, you will have to change your number anyways if your card is stolen, it's very easy to use your card without any ID, MC/V prohibits requiring ID, etc.

I was just reading that threat about the TSA stealing stuff and it made me think of this. We're really addicted to security theater, even if it accomplishes nothing....

-Felix

Well, no, it DOES make a difference, when the person using your credit card tries to show his/her ID - or leaves without using it. You don't want to show it, fine, don't do it. But also don't come in here complaining because someone stole your identity and those damn merchants just let 'em buy everything without even asking to see ID. (not that I hope you'll find yourself in that situation! )

 

[sba55]

Well, no, it DOES make a difference, when the person using your credit card tries to show his/her ID - or leaves without using it. You don't want to show it, fine, don't do it. But also don't come in here complaining because someone stole your identity and those damn merchants just let 'em buy everything without even asking to see ID. (not that I hope you'll find yourself in that situation! )

Why would I care if I was in that situation? And you're missing the point - the person who stole my card wouldn't show his ID. He'd refuse, and the merchant would charge anyways.

I'd much rather have all my credit cards stolen (and replaced within a few business days at no cost to me and no negative effect on my credit files) than have my identity stolen. The only thing missing is your SSN (which is easy enough to find) and some person you showed your ID to can start opening accounts in your name.

In any case, it doesn't matter, does it - you're not allowed to require ID. Really that simple with MC/V.

 

[kkoran]

Whether or not a merchant can require ID is between the merchant and the issuer of the card. I don't know why some people (customers) act like they have any say in the matter.