When did all this ID nonsense start anyhow?

[Grizzly Bear]

The first time I was asked was in 2000 and then things went down hill from there. Nowadays Raleigh, NC is infested with businesses that ask for ID. Does anyone have recollections of being carded prior to 2000?

[Towncar]

2000 seems about right, I guess about the time the media declared ID and credit theft to be the next big problem. ID requirements were violations before then, and merchants chose to make their own rules, probably due to the reporting.

 

The important thing is that all violations are promptly reported, and that merchants never ask for ID again. Make sure your community is 100% violation free.

 

Take back Raleigh from the violators by promptly filing incident reports whenever violations occur.

[GEORGE]

Somebody got the "BRIGHT IDEA" that asking for ID would prevent people from using stolen credit cards

 

The problem is that the CREDIT CARD COMPANIES make the rules...not the business

 

Compare signatures on signed credit cards...FINE

[BBQ123]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

[jw1980]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

Exactly.

 

Although the "papers please" argument is very important and real, there is another problem in play that consumers don't seem to recognize or care about.

 

The secondary problem is that merchants who fail to protect themselves against risk by following proper card acceptance procedure have no problem putting customers at risk to make up for their own shortcomings.

 

Customers have zero liability with proper product selection and adherence to fraud reporting requirements. Yet, merchants like to lie and insist that ID checks are for the customer's protection. How can an ID check protect a customer when he or she already has zero liability? Does ID checking give the customer negative liability?

 

If a customer follows proper fraud reporting requirements on a zero liability card, then they are already fully protected. Showing ID can do nothing but harm them.

 

Merchants who put customers at risk to make up for their own problems demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the customer.

 

Unfortunately, too many Americans simply do as they are told, without asking why.

[Uncle Leo]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

Exactly.

 

Although the "papers please" argument is very important and real, ...

 

I have no choice but to presume that you are young and naive with virtually no real-world experience... much like BBQ. To equate credit cards and ID checking with "papers please" is wholly ignorant and insulting to specific segregated groups of people who literally couldn't even walk down the street, or buy food, or hold a job, without hearing such things. Groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in Aparthied South Africa, to name just two examples. Get a grip and can the utterly ridiculous hyperbole. Compared to historical realities and the true suffering that millions have endured (and died), ID checking for credit cards is but a mere annoying pimple on one's flowers.

[GEORGE]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

SOME LOVE TO SHOW THEIR PAPERS...but won't take me up on my offer to have their driver's license printed on a white T-SHIRT (front and back)---ENLARGE TO FIT

 

They can wear it every place they go

 

They LOVE to show it with their credit card at POS

 

...but they WON'T show it to people at the mall or walking down the street

 

I don't get what difference is...

[jw1980]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

Exactly.

 

Although the "papers please" argument is very important and real, ...

 

I have no choice but to presume that you are young and naive with virtually no real-world experience... much like BBQ. To equate credit cards and ID checking with "papers please" is wholly ignorant and insulting to specific segregated groups of people who literally couldn't even walk down the street, or buy food, or hold a job, without hearing such things. Groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in Aparthied South Africa, to name just two examples. Get a grip and can the utterly ridiculous hyperbole. Compared to historical realities and the true suffering that millions have endured (and died), ID checking for credit cards is but a mere annoying pimple on one's flowers.

I'm going to ignore the ad hominem in that one, since that seems to be your style and addressing it will go nowhere.

 

You must be living under a rock, because those who are asked for and decline to present papers while walking down the street, here in America, are presumed to be either hiding from warrants, or engaged in criminal behavior. Those who choose to assert their rights are perceived with suspicion. If you refuse a warrantless search of your car or home, the police assume you must be hiding drugs or something else. The only reason we have reached this point is that too many people have failed to counter the line, "if you have nothing to hide, then you don't mind me searching" with the line, "if I have nothing to hide, then you don't need to search."

 

As for employment, the law mandates checking both identity papers and authorization to work papers before granting employment, without exception.

 

The use of intrusive document checks and other searches against minority groups throughout the course of history is terrible, but drawing a basic parallel does not in any way insult those groups, nor is it ridiculous hyperbole. Nobody is suggesting that ID checks for card purchases equate to a systematic method of oppression. However, for "paper checks" to have been a method of oppression in the past, there must be something about such requests that can be inappropriate, intrusive, and contradictory to personal liberty. Nobody ever said it was equal in magnitude, though.

 

Have you ever considered that some people are against ID checks because they don't want our rapidly approaching cashless society to require ID to buy food, as you have suggested in your post?

 

Any intrusion of civil liberties is subject to the snowball effect. In the beginning, intrusions are rare, as they are not commonplace and people see no reason for them. As they become more commonplace, the rate at which they become more commonplace increases. Those who seek to trample liberty can offer an argument bearing the form, "you already have to do X to get Y, so you shouldn't mind it here too."

 

Years ago, nobody showed ID to get on a plane. When showing ID to get on a plane became required, it snowballed into many other locations requiring ID for admissions. Today, ID is required to get on buses, trains, and boats, and to gain access to office buildings and parking garages, and the number of locations requiring such procedures is increasing.

 

If, in a cashless society, people are required to show ID on every one of many daily transactions, then the populace will have become so habituated to carrying and producing ID on demand that ID checks will, in comparison, seem warranted to do anything.

 

Perhaps those who oppose ID checks have seen its use throughout history, and would prefer to learn from history, rather than being doomed to repeat it.

[Uncle Leo]

American's stopped trying to protect their rights after the fall of communism, figuring that the "papers please" worry was gone.

Exactly.

 

Although the "papers please" argument is very important and real, ...

 

I have no choice but to presume that you are young and naive with virtually no real-world experience... much like BBQ. To equate credit cards and ID checking with "papers please" is wholly ignorant and insulting to specific segregated groups of people who literally couldn't even walk down the street, or buy food, or hold a job, without hearing such things. Groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in Aparthied South Africa, to name just two examples. Get a grip and can the utterly ridiculous hyperbole. Compared to historical realities and the true suffering that millions have endured (and died), ID checking for credit cards is but a mere annoying pimple on one's flowers.

I'm going to ignore the ad hominem in that one, since that seems to be your style and addressing it will go nowhere.

 

I can sling logical fallacy claims, too. Doesn't make it accurate. I have no patience for those who cheapen the real suffering of others in attempting to raise the status of their own little pet peeves. When a merchant points a gun at a cardholder and says, "Show your ID or die", and is backed up by the police in doing so, then you'll have a valid point. Until then...

[jw1980]

I can sling logical fallacy claims, too. Doesn't make it accurate. I have no patience for those who cheapen the real suffering of others in attempting to raise the status of their own little pet peeves. When a merchant points a gun at a cardholder and says, "Show your ID or die", and is backed up by the police in doing so, then you'll have a valid point. Until then...

You can make all of the logical fallacies you want, but they don't help your position when people call them out for what they are.

 

How does resisting ID cheapen the suffering of others? How does a more oppressive use of ID checks in the past invalidate the invasive and inappropriate nature of ID checks in the future?

 

Your argument is weak and holds no water. By your own flawed logic, condemning any one act of murder in the present only cheapens the suffering of those in the past.

 

If there wasn't some fundamental problem with aggressive ID checks, then they never would have been part of systematic oppression in the past.

 

Once again, it is you who is introducing the "utterly ridiculous hyperbole" to the discussion. Nobody ever suggested that customers would ever be subjected to ID checks, at gunpoint, from merchants. The concern is that failure to produce ID for anything and everything would effectively lock a person out of very basic forms of social interaction. Not all coercion is violent, yet it is plainly obvious that needing ID to buy food is a coercive tactic.

[GEORGE]

BECAUSE I REFUSE TO SHOW MY PAPERS...I AM A CRIMINAL

 

BECAUSE I REFUSE TO SHOW MY PAPERS...I STOLE ALL THE CREDIT CARDS I CARRY

 

A non criminal will love to SHOW THEIR PAPERS

 

[Uncle Leo]

People that have known me long enough, and I've been around here for a few years, know that I am the slippery-slope poster child. I see it all over the place and consider it a part of human nature to a great degree. Having said that, equating unjustified arrests, tortures, and even deaths, as implied by "papers please" and the crystal clear implications that goes along with said phrase, to vague random ID checking for using a credit card ain't it. One can claim the slippery slope if they want, but you'd have to slide down 98% of frickin Mt Everest to get even close.

[Grizzly Bear]

We are losing freedoms every year from both government and business. Increasingly we are living in a "guilty until proven innocent" society and few notice it.

[webworm98]

Lets get this thread back on topic and stop bringing up the political comments. Otherwise the moderator may close it.

Edited December 22, 2008 by webworm98

[GEORGE]

We are losing freedoms every year from both government and business. Increasingly we are living in a "guilty until proven innocent" society and few notice it.

It is REALLY SAD that many people don't care (even encourage it)...as in not signing their credit cards and putting CID on their credit cards INSTEAD OF THEIR NAME

[Uncle Leo]

We are losing freedoms every year from both government and business. Increasingly we are living in a "guilty until proven innocent" society and few notice it.

It is REALLY SAD that many people don't care (even encourage it)...as in not signing their credit cards and putting CID on their credit cards INSTEAD OF THEIR NAME

 

Just as sad as the "screw you, I got mine" overall mindset that is a big part of the reason we're in such a deep recession right now. Too many people delude themselves into thinking that they can live in a bubble and that it's just them.

[jw1980]

People that have known me long enough, and I've been around here for a few years, know that I am the slippery-slope poster child. I see it all over the place and consider it a part of human nature to a great degree. Having said that, equating unjustified arrests, tortures, and even deaths, as implied by "papers please" and the crystal clear implications that goes along with said phrase, to vague random ID checking for using a credit card ain't it. One can claim the slippery slope if they want, but you'd have to slide down 98% of frickin Mt Everest to get even close.

Please re-read my post. I never equated the two, nor would any reasonable person ever suggest such a parallel.

 

Yes, there are some who do, but that tone isn't present in this discussion. Those extreme types don't use plastic to begin with, citing privacy concerns at the bank itself.

 

One of the broader reaching civil liberties components of the ID debate focuses on the habituation of the public to ID checks in daily life. The slippery slope is present and very real, although for the purposes of arguing against ID its presence or lack thereof isn't necessary.

 

Proof of identity is not inherently necessary to most retail transactions. Unless the customer is purchasing legally controlled products, or entering into a binding contract, all the merchant needs to know is that funds are good. Traditionally, this has been accomplished through paper currency that is difficult to reproduce; in essence, proof of payment was accomplished by examining banknotes for signs of authenticity. A signature-based card transaction can be authorized in real time to know that funds from the account are good. The only concern comes when that authorization is potentially reversed due to fraud. Proper adherence to card acceptance procedure can make card-based fraud losses far less of a concern than shoplifting, employee theft, UPC fraud, or return fraud. If signature transactions are phased out in favor of chip and pin, as they should be, we can add an additional layer of security to a merchant's knowledge that funds are good and will remain after settlement.

 

The habituation argument isn't exactly watertight, as merchants aren't acting as a central body looking to normalize ID checks for some nefarious reason apart from verifying ownership of a card. Other organizations may very well seek to do that, but that isn't the issue at hand. Apart from habituation, we have another issue with functionality creep that is actively happening with ID, particularly drivers' licenses. DLs were originally issued to drivers who passed basic safety and registration requirements, and were only used to keep the roads orderly and safe. Older licenses were printed on paper, and then laminated paper. They were easy to duplicate, but nobody really did that when they were only used to establish driving privileges. Eventually, DLs became used as the de facto document of American identity (issued much more widely than the passport), and have become used for a wide array of purposes having nothing to do with motor vehicles.

 

ID as a whole is creeping into places where it is neither necessary or helpful. Have you ever seen a public official glancing at the IDs of citizens using public transportation? To the best of my knowledge, there is no "do not ride" list, and the guilty parties do nothing other than verify that every rider has what appears to be a valid identity document on or about their person. The instances of similar behavior are extensive and could easily fill a book.

 

If customers choose not to care about privacy or civil liberties, that is certainly their choice. What I find is that most people don't understand the issue at hand until they are educated as to the problem. In the most practical of sense, it can be said that a person can always get a new card number if the old one is misused. A person's name, address, birth date, and ID number cannot be changed when they fall into the wrong hands. Explaining that perspective to someone who could care less about societal implications usually changes their mind on why ID is bad. Most people seem to understand that once an identity is stolen, you can't exactly "get it back" or "get a new one", but they just don't seem to make the connection on the issue of card ID checks.

 

This practical component of the ID issue brings me around to the point of this post, and emphasizes why this is not strictly a political or intellectual issue. Day by day, people are becoming more habituated to giving out personal information for a wide variety of social interactions, and the usage of that personal information has suffered from a functionality creep in which information is being processed, aggregated, analyzed, and stored for an indefinite period of time. One prime example is the Social Security number; would the framers of Social Security have ever imagined that a nine digit number issued by the government for administering public benefits would eventually become more important to the private sector than the issuer itself? That number, along with other personal information readily available in public records, is all that is needed to steal an identity and commit fraud in someone else's name.

 

ID theft has become so pervasive because the usage and storage of personal information has become so pervasive. I can remember when the theft of a computer containing a few hundred personal records was news. Nowadays, a laptop containing a million records can go missing, and it might not see any more exposure than the local police blotter.

 

To the average consumer, civil liberties don't matter, as they aren't seen as a practical issue that one person can do anything about. One consumer can rant and rave all he or she desires, but it isn't going to make much of a difference. So, ultimately, people choose to pick their battles and give out personal information when asked.

 

This is why identity theft has become so rampant, and why society is bearing the costs of tens of billions of dollars in fraud. People might understand that an identity can't be un-stolen, but they don't understand exactly how many criminals will have their information once it hits the black market, and how the stolen profile can be referenced against public records after time passes, to keep it current and usable. People don't seem to understand that once the genie leaves the bottle, it can't be put back in. In this day and age, once your identity is stolen, you have to be on guard for life.

 

While the chances of any one instance of disclosing personal information where it isn't necessary leading to identity theft is low, the aggregation of all of those risks throughout years of daily life is a sizable risk, no different than the house's ~1.4% advantage in blackjack. 1.4%, in moderation, isn't much of a risk. However, as one continues to play, the odds of a ruined life, a bankruptcy, a failed marriage, and a downward spiral increase. If you play enough blackjack, you will lose.

 

So, in closing, the best protection against identity theft is to only provide personal information when it is absolutely necessary and fundamental to the transaction at hand, and no reasonable alternative exists to the disclosure of such information. Retail ID checks fit neither of the two criteria, and need to be proactively eliminated.

[GEORGE]

IF YOU FEEL SPECIAL BY NOT SIGNING or CHANGING YOUR NAME TO CID...GO FOR IT

[Continental]

The first time I was asked was in 2000 and then things went down hill from there.

This ID nonsense is largely a post-911 phenomena. Crooks found they could get away with wriggling IDs out of people at a time when the less-informed were more likely to hand over their IDs to anyone without question. Thankfully this disease has been declining rapidly in recent years as more and more people become educated and return to basic common sense.

 

CREDIT CARD SIGNATURE IS ALL THE ID NEEDED

 

When you pay for merchandise with a Visa card, MasterCard, or American Express any store that accepts these cards should accept yours too, no questions asked. It's part of the deal that merchants agree to when they become participating members.

 

They must check your signature and the card - electronically or by telephone - to be sure it's valid. Once the answer comes up yes, they can go ahead and charge. They can't ask you for any further identification - not a license plate number, Social Security number, proof of address, phone number or picture ID.

 

Your personal ID isn't needed because Visa, MasterCard, and American Express all guarantee payment on cards that have been properly checked. If the issuer mistakenly authorizes a sale on a bad card, it should make good. MasterCard says that merchants receive instant settlement. The contract MasterCard merchants sign specifically prevents them from asking for personal ID.

 

Unfortunately, not all merchants play by the rules. Some, apparently, haven't read them.

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

 

MasterCard wants to hear about merchants who break their rules. Send the name and address and an account of what happened to MasterCard WorldWide 2000 Purchase St. Purchase, NY 10577 or call 1-800-300-3069. The merchant's bank will get a stiff letter, ordering it to investigate and bring the offending store into line - or pay a $2,000 fine. You may also report violations online:

 

http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/c...violations.html

 

Visa enforces the same rules as MasterCard. "When we hear about a violation, we ask the bank that signed the merchant to get together with the merchant and see that the practice is stopped," Visa representative states. To report a merchant, send a letter to the bank that that issued your Visa card or call 1-800-VISA-911.

 

American Express also prohibits merchants from asking for IDs. "All a merchant is supposed to do is take an imprint, make sure the signature matches and swipe the card through the terminal, to get authorization."

[MikeVQ]

Is this really such a big deal? Someone asks me for id, I pull another card(my drivers license) from the very wallet I pulled my credit card from.

 

If someone steals your card and tries to use it and the cashier asks for id. Do you all have a problem with it then?

[azntg]

Is this really such a big deal? Someone asks me for id, I pull another card(my drivers license) from the very wallet I pulled my credit card from.

 

If someone steals your card and tries to use it and the cashier asks for id. Do you all have a problem with it then?

 

Yes, it is a big deal.

 

My mother experienced identity theft few years ago. With her, we suspect that mail theft (of preapproval applications) was the avenue of opportunity. The crook(s) is still not apprehended, but the a-hole has went as far as to submit a change of address. I'm surprised that things were resolved as quickly and as smoothly as they did, given the circumstances.

 

A close friend of mine experienced identity theft a few years ago, as well. With him, we suspect that a cashier or a hidden camera recorded the information on his driver license (based on the fact that his driver license number was used in fraudulent applications). He wasn't so lucky. The recovery process was miserable hell and then some.

 

---

 

I used to believe that checking photo ID would decrease the incidents of fraud. Obviously not, as my mother and my friend can attest.

 

Well, I've been lucky so far, but people with whom I have relationships have not. So, my photo ID only comes out at those who are legally (or contractually) allowed to demand such items from me (law enforcement officers, school safety officials, etc.) or at relatively secure environments (e.g.: banks while conducting a major banking business).

 

---

 

I still have a problem with it if someone steals my card, tries to use it and the cashier asks for ID. What happens if the crook can produce a fake matching drivers license? It will deter nobody except for the dumbest, opportunistic thieves.

 

I understand for those hell-bent on a viewpoint of an issue (myself included), there's no way to effectively change opinions. But I'd like to invite you to look at the video embedded (which is pertinent to the issue on hand) at this article in Marcus' Credit Matters Blog. It opens eyes.

 

[Link] Credit Matters Blog - One Hacker's Audacious Plan to Rule the Black Market in Stolen Credit Cards

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually it is a huge deal. Years ago we all had the pleasant experience of shopping without being treated as criminals. As paying customers, we deserve more respect than this.

 

As for the myth that it curbs fraud -think it through. In order for ID to effectively curb fraud, nearly every merchant would have to require ID (which we know is prohibited by MC/Visa). Anyone with a stolen card can find numerous places to use it. Therefore the fact that some rogue merchants require it is of no consequence.

 

Moreover, we are protected by MC/Visa policy of zero liability for fraudulent purchases.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[MikeVQ]

Actually it is a huge deal. Years ago we all had the pleasant experience of shopping without being treated as criminals. As paying customers, we deserve more respect than this.

 

I'm not suggesting it curbs fraud 100%, I'm not that naive. Yes, I understand that a stolen card can be used at gas stations etc. without ID. I guess we agree to disagree. I've never felt like a criminal when a merchant has asked me for ID.

 

Deterring the dumbest of Credit Card thieves is still better than nothing in my opinion.

[Grizzly Bear]

So it's OK to breach a contract?

 

It doesn't prevent ANY fraudulent use. It merely displaces it.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[jw1980]

ID doesn't deter the thieves, it only changes the nature of the theft.

 

You know what, let the thieves run the stolen cards inside big box retail stores instead of online, at gas pumps, or at small merchants.

 

I would like to know how many of these salamanders are caught using stolen cards on videotape. If all the videotaped locations begin requiring ID, then the thieves will end up buying off camera causing just as much loss, but leaving detectives with no leads.