List of reasons why ID is a bad idea

[Grizzly Bear]

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it and the business agreed to those rules when they signed on to take credit cards.

 

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.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[thelowpriceleader]

In the environments with a high number of transactions and low fraud rates (grocery, mass merchant, convenience store, restaurant, cinema) it takes more time to check ID in lost productivity than any money that anyone (bank or merchant) is saving as a result of fraud that may be cut by checking ID.

 

Of course I don't think the ID check stops much fraud at all. Between the less than detailed glance many cashiers give and the ease of obtaining fake ID, the "check" is little more than a feel good measure that accomplishes nothing, wastes time, and is risky due to the display of so much personal information.

 

Take a grocery store. Assume this grocery store processes 500 credit card transactions per day and the ID check will take them an extra 30 seconds per credit card transaction. Assume this store has fraud in the amount of $350 per week. Assume the cost of labor on the front end is $15 per hour and the store operates 7 days per week.

 

 

This same scenario is also probably why so few merchants bother to spend the time on checking signatures...

 

# trans 500

Seconds 30

 

 

Ttl sec/dy 15000

Ttl min/dy 250

Ttl hr/dy 4.166666667

Ttl day/wk 7

 

Cshr wage/hr 15

 

Cost to check ID 437.5

 

Fraud 350

 

Net -87.5

 

Again this scenario assumes that ALL fraud will be prevented by the ID check, which we know is not the case (I make this statement this from experience...). So in reality the store with their "ID Required" policy will be worse off than it appears in the "net" line there.

 

Numbers don't lie. If the numbers supported an ID required for credit card use policy, Visa/MC's issuing banks would certainly lobby and push for it.

[Uncle Leo]

In the environments with a high number of transactions and low fraud rates (grocery, mass merchant, convenience store, restaurant, cinema) it takes more time to check ID in lost productivity than any money that anyone (bank or merchant) is saving as a result of fraud that may be cut by checking ID.

 

Of course I don't think the ID check stops much fraud at all. Between the less than detailed glance many cashiers give and the ease of obtaining fake ID, the "check" is little more than a feel good measure that accomplishes nothing, wastes time, and is risky due to the display of so much personal information.

 

Take a grocery store. Assume this grocery store processes 500 credit card transactions per day and the ID check will take them an extra 30 seconds per credit card transaction. Assume this store has fraud in the amount of $350 per week. Assume the cost of labor on the front end is $15 per hour and the store operates 7 days per week.

 

This same scenario is also probably why so few merchants bother to spend the time on checking signatures...

 

# trans 500

Seconds 30

 

 

Ttl sec/dy 15000

Ttl min/dy 250

Ttl hr/dy 4.166666667

Ttl day/wk 7

 

Cshr wage/hr 15

 

Cost to check ID 437.5

 

Fraud 350

 

Net -87.5

 

Again this scenario assumes that ALL fraud will be prevented by the ID check, which we know is not the case (I make this statement this from experience...). So in reality the store with their "ID Required" policy will be worse off than it appears in the "net" line there.

 

Numbers don't lie.

Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'GO". Do not collect $200.

 

You can't use phrases like "numbers don't lie" after you just got done making up numbers to conveniently wrap around your desired conclusion and peppered the whole thing with words like "assume" and "probably" throughout. The numbers are so transparent that attempts to legitimize them at the end with "we know" and "in reality" are meaningless.

 

 

If the numbers supported an ID required for credit card use policy, Visa/MC's issuing banks would certainly lobby and push for it.

Unless it's the banks taking the fall for the fraud and bogus sales, then they wouldn't have any reason to lobby. Who does get stuck with the bill, anyway?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Uncle Leo

[GEORGE]

MY LICENSE TO DRIVE A CAR/TRUCK doesn't come out of my pocket unless it is required by law to do so

 

Like at the AIRPORT

[GEORGE]

I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO SHOW ID BECAUSE MY ID IS THE SIGNATURE ON THE BACK OF THE CARD

[thelowpriceleader]

Well based on my prior experience a grocery store with a fraud rate of $350 per week would be high fraud for a grocery store. Many grocery stores go months without getting a chargeback for stolen card use... Very, very low fraud merchant type.

 

Of course you need to pay some attention to the transactions and what is going on, notably purchases of large quantities of gift cards.

 

Since we don't have actual numbers, or the actual numbers I have are confidential, all that can be done is assuming. Visa/MC, of course, have the real numbers...

[cljohnr]

Take a grocery store.

 

Assume the cost of labor on the front end is $15 per hour

At what grocery store do you shop? I'd assume maybe $8, as these are almost exclusively part time high school kids, with no benefits where I live. But I guess your numbers wouldn't work at that pay rate.

[thelowpriceleader]

Many grocery stores are covered under union contracts. Once you add in the cost of benefits, employer's portion of taxes, etc. for the full time cashiers, you are looking at a labor cost over $20 per hour for those cashiers. Then you also have a group of cashiers as you describe at the $8/hr wage but there are the associated benefit costs for some of them as well depending how many hours they work. There are also times when higher paid labor such as managers are operating a register in a grocery store. The $15 is a fair estimate for the west and mountain states. The $15 is probably a high estimate for the south and $12 would be closer in that case.

[webworm98]

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it and the business agreed to those rules when they signed on to take credit cards.

 

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.

 

Repeating my post from another thread with additions.

 

I think I just debunked all your points.

 

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 3 is funny. Have you ever heard of clone cards? I had fraud on mine and I kept track of them. That is how I prevented more fraud.

 

Number 4 does not always work.

 

Number 5 actually shows you a reason to check ID.

 

Number 6 is iffy. Who really knows 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 24, 2009 by webworm98

[GEORGE]

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it and the business agreed to those rules when they signed on to take credit cards.

 

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.

 

Repeating my post from another thread with additions.

 

I think I just debunked all your points.

 

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 3 is funny. Have you ever heard of clone cards? I had fraud on mine and I kept track of them. That is how I prevented more fraud.

 

Number 4 does not always work.

 

Number 5 actually shows you a reason to check ID.

 

Number 6 is iffy. Who really knows 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.

GO AHEAD...MAKE MY DAY

 

[Grizzly Bear]

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it and the business agreed to those rules when they signed on to take credit cards.

 

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.

 

Repeating my post from another thread with additions.

 

I think I just debunked all your points.

 

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 3 is funny. Have you ever heard of clone cards? I had fraud on mine and I kept track of them. That is how I prevented more fraud.

 

Number 4 does not always work.

 

Number 5 actually shows you a reason to check ID.

 

Number 6 is iffy. Who really knows 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.

 

 

Actually all of your arguments are extremely weak.

 

Again, most of my points are reason enough on their own for a business not to require ID. You haven't debunked any.

 

So it's ok for a business to sign an agreement and knowingly violate it?

Edited July 24, 2009 by Grizzly Bear

[webworm98]

1) MC and Visa rules prohibit it and the business agreed to those rules when they signed on to take credit cards.

 

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 requiringID 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.

 

Repeating my post from another thread with additions.

 

I think I just debunked all your points.

 

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 3 is funny. Have you ever heard of clone cards? I had fraud on mine and I kept track of them. That is how I prevented more fraud.

 

Number 4 does not always work.

 

Number 5 actually shows you a reason to check ID.

 

Number 6 is iffy. Who really knows 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.

 

 

Actually all of your arguments are extremely weak.

 

Again, most of my points are reason enough on their own for a business not to require ID. You haven't debunked any.

 

So it's ok for a business to sign an agreement and knowingly violate it?

 

Dont put words in my mouth, I never said it is ok to violate agreement. Just that is not enforced as it should be. I bet less merchants would take credit cards if the policies were strictly enforced.

 

As far a debunking, I stand by my previous comments.

[Grizzly Bear]

So if it's not OK to violate their agreement, they shouldn't be requiring ID now, should they?

[webworm98]

So if it's not OK to violate their agreement, they shouldn't be requiring ID now, should they?

 

Ugh.

We shouldnt be the ones to enforce it or even reporting it. It should be the merchant provider or the merchant bank.

 

My personal belief after reading thread here and stuff on the web. I think checking ID is a good thing. I do believe small merchants should be able to have a minimum amount. Another words if their profit is small. In that the case, I would recommend those businesses get just a pin base debit card system.

[GEORGE]

So if it's not OK to violate their agreement, they shouldn't be requiring ID now, should they?

 

Ugh.

We shouldnt be the ones to enforce it or even reporting it.

It should be the merchant provider or the merchant bank.

 

My personal belief after reading thread here and stuff on the web. I think checking ID is a good thing. I do believe small merchants should be able to have a minimum amount. Another words if their profit is small. In that the case, I would recommend those businesses get just a pin base debit card system.

IF THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T ENFORCE IT or REPORT IT...how does the credit card company find out about the violations

 

[webworm98]

So if it's not OK to violate their agreement, they shouldn't be requiring ID now, should they?

 

Ugh.

We shouldnt be the ones to enforce it or even reporting it.

It should be the merchant provider or the merchant bank.

 

My personal belief after reading thread here and stuff on the web. I think checking ID is a good thing. I do believe small merchants should be able to have a minimum amount. Another words if their profit is small. In that the case, I would recommend those businesses get just a pin base debit card system.

IF THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T ENFORCE IT or REPORT IT...how does the credit card company find out about the violations

 

 

To answer that question. The merchant provider or merchant bank would know if they are violating the policy, by checking out the merchant and give them a warning. They would do surprise inspection every so often.

Edited July 24, 2009 by webworm98

[GEORGE]

So if it's not OK to violate their agreement, they shouldn't be requiring ID now, should they?

 

Ugh.

We shouldnt be the ones to enforce it or even reporting it.

It should be the merchant provider or the merchant bank.

 

My personal belief after reading thread here and stuff on the web. I think checking ID is a good thing. I do believe small merchants should be able to have a minimum amount. Another words if their profit is small. In that the case, I would recommend those businesses get just a pin base debit card system.

IF THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T ENFORCE IT or REPORT IT...how does the credit card company find out about the violations

 

 

To answer that question. The merchant provider or merchant bank would know if they are violating the policy, by checking out the merchant and give them a warning. They would do surprise inspection every so often.

LIKE THAT IS COST EFFECTIVE

 

Especially when they may not even have one employee that could do that in a specific state that many VIOLATIONS HAPPEN IN

 

The consumer is doing it for FREE