ID requirements do not protect the cardholder

[Grizzly Bear]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

Edited July 19, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[GEORGE]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

EVER SHOWN YOUR ID AT THE GAS PUMP???

[hegemony]

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

how does checking ID protect me?

 

it is simply the merchant trying to CYA.

 

I AM NOT A CREDIT CARD THIEF THEREFORE I DO NOT SHOW MY ID

[Grizzly Bear]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

EVER SHOWN YOUR ID AT THE GAS PUMP???

 

 

Never have, never will. I always refuse and then report the merchant.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[GEORGE]

My license to drive a car/truck was NEVER intended as a credit card use permit

[Uncle Leo]

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

That statement could easily apply to so many things in life in general.

 

Besides, it's really not quite so obvious. On the surface there is some logic to it, hence people still doing it.

[cljohnr]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

It's pretty simple. The longer it takes them to use the cards, the more time you have to get them cancelled. The worst cases I've seen of credit card theft were in college. Some girls would leave their purses in their cars while in class. They would come back an hour later to find a broken window and that their card had already been used. Minutes mattered in these cases. If the thieves had been turned away at one or two stores, maybe they wouldn't have been able to use the cards.

[Grizzly Bear]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

It's pretty simple. The longer it takes them to use the cards, the more time you have to get them cancelled. The worst cases I've seen of credit card theft were in college. Some girls would leave their purses in their cars while in class. They would come back an hour later to find a broken window and that their card had already been used. Minutes mattered in these cases. If the thieves had been turned away at one or two stores, maybe they wouldn't have been able to use the cards.

 

 

Wow.... talk about grasping at straws.........

 

And in any given situation, what are the odds of the scenario you describe, where there was an extremely short amount of time. They left their cards in their vehicle? How about some personal responsibility??!!!! Ever heard the statement, "Don't leave valuables locked in your car." ?

 

 

So your line of logic would go something like this:

 

Businesses should require ID, regardless of the objection many customers because it is their responsibility to police their customers, because some cardholders can't seem to hang onto their own card. (Granted, it is not always the cardholder's fault.)

 

This, despite the fact that-

 

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it, nevertheless let's deliberately violate the contract the business agreed to.

 

2) Traditionally, no ID was required for decades until recently.

 

3) Much of the fraud is partly attributable to cardholder's being slack in keeping track of their cards.

 

4) MC and Visa have a policy of zero liability to the cardholder for fraudulent purchases.

 

5) Most businesses follow the rules and don't require ID, therefore in most cases it would be easily to max out a card in short order, therefore, some businesses requiring ID will be of no protection in almost all cases.

 

6) Many of us find the practice insulting and disrespectful and we don't want to be policed by a cashier (but hey, who cares about that?).

 

7) Requiring ID increases the opportunity for actual ID theft by a dishonest cashier.

 

Most of the above points are reason enough on their own for ID not to be required. To think that you can debunk all seven points is to be in denial.

[Grizzly Bear]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

It's pretty simple. The longer it takes them to use the cards, the more time you have to get them cancelled. The worst cases I've seen of credit card theft were in college. Some girls would leave their purses in their cars while in class. They would come back an hour later to find a broken window and that their card had already been used. Minutes mattered in these cases. If the thieves had been turned away at one or two stores, maybe they wouldn't have been able to use the cards.

 

 

Wow.... talk about grasping at straws.........

 

And in any given situation, what are the odds of the scenario you describe, where there was an extremely short amount of time. They left their cards in their vehicle? How about some personal responsibility??!!!! Ever heard the statement, "Don't leave valuables locked in your car." ?

 

 

So your line of logic would go something like this:

 

Businesses should require ID, regardless of the objection many customers because it is their responsibility to police their customers, because some cardholders can't seem to hang onto their own card. (Granted, it is not always the cardholder's fault.)

 

This, despite the fact that-

 

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it, nevertheless let's deliberately violate the contract the business agreed to.

 

2) Traditionally, no ID was required for decades until recently.

 

3) Much of the fraud is partly attributable to cardholders being slack in keeping track of their cards.

 

4) MC and Visa have a policy of zero liability to the cardholder for fraudulent purchases.

 

5) Most businesses follow the rules and don't require ID, therefore in most cases it would be easily to max out a card in short order, therefore, some businesses requiring ID will be of no protection in almost all cases.

 

6) Many of us find the practice insulting and disrespectful and we don't want to be policed by a cashier (but hey, who cares about that?).

 

7) Requiring ID increases the opportunity for actual ID theft by a dishonest cashier.

 

Most of the above points are reason enough on their own for ID not to be required. To think that you can debunk all seven points is to be in denial.

[webworm98]

Given the number of misinformed posts recently, I think this point bears repeating:

 

How does the fact that some businesses require an ID protect a cardholder when a credit card thief can simply find any number of businesses where ID is not required?

 

You would have to have nearly all businesses requiring ID (and violating MC and Visa rules) for ID to have any measure of protection for the cardholder.

 

Why do so many people miss this obvious point????!!!!

It's pretty simple. The longer it takes them to use the cards, the more time you have to get them cancelled. The worst cases I've seen of credit card theft were in college. Some girls would leave their purses in their cars while in class. They would come back an hour later to find a broken window and that their card had already been used. Minutes mattered in these cases. If the thieves had been turned away at one or two stores, maybe they wouldn't have been able to use the cards.

 

 

Wow.... talk about grasping at straws.........

 

And in any given situation, what are the odds of the scenario you describe, where there was an extremely short amount of time. They left their cards in their vehicle? How about some personal responsibility??!!!! Ever heard the statement, "Don't leave valuables locked in your car." ?

 

 

So your line of logic would go something like this:

 

Businesses should require ID, regardless of the objection many customers because it is their responsibility to police their customers, because some cardholders can't seem to hang onto their own card. (Granted, it is not always the cardholder's fault.)

 

This, despite the fact that-

 

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it, nevertheless let's deliberately violate the contract the business agreed to.

 

2) Traditionally, no ID was required for decades until recently.

 

3) Much of the fraud is partly attributable to cardholders being slack in keeping track of their cards.

 

4) MC and Visa have a policy of zero liability to the cardholder for fraudulent purchases.

 

5) Most businesses follow the rules and don't require ID, therefore in most cases it would be easily to max out a card in short order, therefore, some businesses requiring ID will be of no protection in almost all cases.

 

6) Many of us find the practice insulting and disrespectful and we don't want to be policed by a cashier (but hey, who cares about that?).

 

7) Requiring ID increases the opportunity for actual ID theft by a dishonest cashier.

 

Most of the above points are reason enough on their own for ID not to be required. To think that you can debunk all seven points is to be in denial.

 

Number 1

Mastercard/Visa does not enforce enough of the violations.

 

Number2

Id was asked for in any decade. Actually, I remember a time, Credit card use was frowned on in the late 70's and 80's. You got the strangest looks when using a card at a merchant.

 

Number 4 does not always work.

 

Number 6 is iffy. Who reallys know how many are offended.

 

Number 7 I had problems with a dishonorable cashier with no id.

 

 

Refusing to show ID could get cops called and you could get arrested for refusing to show ID to the Cashier. It has happened. I am not talking about refusing to show it to a cop either.

Edited July 23, 2009 by webworm98

[GEORGE]

I really NEED to know when a LICENSE TO DRIVE A CAR/TRUCK became a credit card use permit

[improper_validation]

Refusing to show ID could get cops called and you could get arrested for refusing to show ID to the Cashier. It has happened. I am not talking about refusing to show it to a cop either.

 

As GEORGE would say, I smell a lawsuit. (I even got the bold font and red color!)