98 replies to this topic

[GEORGE]

A PIN system would speed up purchasing (no need to hand over card, no need to sign, no need to compare signatures, etc.)... but I would only support a PIN system if the zero-liability for fraud remained as it does with signature systems.

PIN # WOULD BE THE SAME AS A SIGNATURE

No PIN #, machine asked for zip code only.

Huhhhh???

We are talking about not needing to sign for a credit transaction by adding a PIN#

This has nothing to do with your ZIP CODE

[GEORGE]

I dropped my card at Wal Mart

You and Centex need to keep track of your own credit cards rather than expect the rest of the world to babysit you.

I lost $22 in cash in the store

I have NEVER in 30+ years lost a credit card

But then I am an IDIOT

[2fast]

I dropped my card at Wal Mart

You and Centex need to keep track of your own credit cards rather than expect the rest of the world to babysit you.

Answer the question. You don't need to babysit, you need to expand your information base on your topic of crusade and learn that while "it's the rules", it's also counterproductive to the financial wellbeing of merchants and cardholders. Hopefully you don't fall for all add cmpaigns lke you did this one. You must have stock in the kool aid for as much as you push it.

I've been in seminars where industry leaders (including Visa/Mastercard execs) have stated that the industry would be better off if they'd switch away from signature as a form of ID verification.
I'm sure that an ID is much easier to copy than your signature. I could have an ID in about 24hrs, while I could copy your signature well enough to pass any cahier in 15 seconds. Hey, who cares about the logic.
How many other rules can I find that are obsolete and damaging to the industry? MANY!. How about laws, I'm sure you've all read about laws on the books that are just stupid right?

Please feel free to link to any article where showing an ID at the POS has led to ID theft, and I'll post 5 articles where not checking ID led to fraud for each one.
If the rule put in place had anything to do with actually cutting back on ID theft you might have some argument, but it wasn't and you don't.

[2fast]

Apparently the posts have to be about showing ID in Las Vegas.

SO SHOWING ID (with a credit card sale) IN LOST WAGES IS A REASON TO PARTY

You are with the in crowd (IN FAVOR OF SHOWING ID)

I still want to know WHO they are protecting when they ask for ID

I don't need their protection

If someone shows up in LV with YOUR card that ISN'Y you, I am reasonably certain you would be appreciative of a sale not taking place PRECISELY because someone asked for ID...

Again. it wouldn't help that someone checked ID because there are millions of other places the card could be used. Why do you not grasp that simple concept?

Ok, so by your own admission the person would have to go somewhere else so checking ID does work to some extent to stop fraud.
Now just imagine if there was nowhere else to go since it was standard practice to check ID.
That way if the ID wasn't checked the chargeback would rightfully land at the merchants feet for failing to properly ID.

In your world it's just fine to allow the thief to go anywhere since they can always go somewhere? It's stupid to lock the doors on your car since someone else will leave theres open and the thief can always find a car.
Are you really advocating making it as easy as possible to steal?
If a store owner doesn't want to check ID then they don't have to, that way the fault is theirs. As it is, they can't but they pay anyway.
Again, all you care about is you, who cares how much money is lost by others because of you.

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that. Sorry to be the one to inform you, but IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

Edited by 2fast, 06 January 2010 - 03:30 PM.

[centex]

There's a difference between getting a card stolen and getting your ID stolen. The first is pretty easy to deal with - it's happened to me several times. The second seems to haunt you forever.

..and Centex needs to learn the difference between the two.

sounds like you need to realize what I dealt with...which included mailbox pilferage. Asking for ID would have stopped those losses.

[Uncle Leo]

Does ID checking stop fraud in the overall grand scheme of the world at-large? No, not really. At least not significantly. Thieves will just move on to the next victim. Especially if they know how absurdly easy signature-based ID is to thwart. No fake-ID even needed.

Does it stop... or at least significantly reduce... fraud and losses for the merchant asking? Yeah, probably so. If they do it right. That's primarily what the individual merchant cares about... their own bottom line and their little corner of the world.

Not saying it is necessarily justified, but to not recognize such is narrow-minded, and to not care about their plight is irresponsible and selfish.

[Grizzly Bear]

Apparently the posts have to be about showing ID in Las Vegas.

SO SHOWING ID (with a credit card sale) IN LOST WAGES IS A REASON TO PARTY

You are with the in crowd (IN FAVOR OF SHOWING ID)

I still want to know WHO they are protecting when they ask for ID

I don't need their protection

If someone shows up in LV with YOUR card that ISN'Y you, I am reasonably certain you would be appreciative of a sale not taking place PRECISELY because someone asked for ID...

Again. it wouldn't help that someone checked ID because there are millions of other places the card could be used. Why do you not grasp that simple concept?

Ok, so by your own admission the person would have to go somewhere else so checking ID does work to some extent to stop fraud.
Now just imagine if there was nowhere else to go since it was standard practice to check ID.
That way if the ID wasn't checked the chargeback would rightfully land at the merchants feet for failing to properly ID.

In your world it's just fine to allow the thief to go anywhere since they can always go somewhere? It's stupid to lock the doors on your car since someone else will leave theres open and the thief can always find a car.
Are you really advocating making it as easy as possible to steal?
If a store owner doesn't want to check ID then they don't have to, that way the fault is theirs. As it is, they can't but they pay anyway.
Again, all you care about is you, who cares how much money is lost by others because of you.

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that. Sorry to be the one to inform you, but IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

There will always be somwhere else for a thief to go, because most merchants play by the rules which say they may not require a customer to show ID. And those rules exist because many of us don't want to be dragged into your efforts to police every little thing we do in life.

So you believe it's OK to violate a contract you signed?

[GEORGE]

Apparently the posts have to be about showing ID in Las Vegas.

SO SHOWING ID (with a credit card sale) IN LOST WAGES IS A REASON TO PARTY

You are with the in crowd (IN FAVOR OF SHOWING ID)

I still want to know WHO they are protecting when they ask for ID

I don't need their protection

If someone shows up in LV with YOUR card that ISN'Y you, I am reasonably certain you would be appreciative of a sale not taking place PRECISELY because someone asked for ID...

Again. it wouldn't help that someone checked ID because there are millions of other places the card could be used. Why do you not grasp that simple concept?

Ok, so by your own admission the person would have to go somewhere else so checking ID does work to some extent to stop fraud.
Now just imagine if there was nowhere else to go since it was standard practice to check ID.
That way if the ID wasn't checked the chargeback would rightfully land at the merchants feet for failing to properly ID.

In your world it's just fine to allow the thief to go anywhere since they can always go somewhere? It's stupid to lock the doors on your car since someone else will leave theres open and the thief can always find a car.
Are you really advocating making it as easy as possible to steal?
If a store owner doesn't want to check ID then they don't have to, that way the fault is theirs. As it is, they can't but they pay anyway.
Again, all you care about is you, who cares how much money is lost by others because of you.

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that. Sorry to be the one to inform you, but IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

There will always be somwhere else for a thief to go, because most merchants play by the rules which say they may not require a customer to show ID. And those rules exist because many of us don't want to be dragged into your efforts to police every little thing we do in life.

So you believe it's OK to violate a contract you signed?

VIOLATING CREDIT CARD POLICY IS OK AS LONG AS THEY ARE PROTECTING THEMSELVES

[LBCS]

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that.

If the merchant wants to eliminate CC fraud fraud let him accept just cash/checks. Once he accepts credit cards he has to play by Visa's rules - nowhere in the agreement does it say that the merchant can selectively accept the rules. If the merchants don't like the rules let them ask Visa to scrap it - but till then checking ID is against TOS.

[radi8]

very few were found with fake ID's that matched the cards in their possession.

Possibly because it really isn't necessary right now. Require ID and you'll start seeing more fake ID's.

You know the rule about raising the bar- you weed out some of the amateurs, but the pros that are left just cause that much more damage.

[LBCS]

sounds like you need to realize what I dealt with...which included mailbox pilferage. Asking for ID would have stopped those losses.

So, what happened to you? 200K is a lot of damage.

[Joseph C]

Apparently the posts have to be about showing ID in Las Vegas.

SO SHOWING ID (with a credit card sale) IN LOST WAGES IS A REASON TO PARTY

You are with the in crowd (IN FAVOR OF SHOWING ID)

I still want to know WHO they are protecting when they ask for ID

I don't need their protection

If someone shows up in LV with YOUR card that ISN'Y you, I am reasonably certain you would be appreciative of a sale not taking place PRECISELY because someone asked for ID...

Does ID checking stop fraud in the overall grand scheme of the world at-large? No, not really. At least not significantly. Thieves will just move on to the next victim. Especially if they know how absurdly easy signature-based ID is to thwart. No fake-ID even needed.

Does it stop... or at least significantly reduce... fraud and losses for the merchant asking? Yeah, probably so. If they do it right. That's primarily what the individual merchant cares about... their own bottom line and their little corner of the world.

Not saying it is necessarily justified, but to not recognize such is narrow-minded, and to not care about their plight is irresponsible and selfish.

Nothing can be done. Resistance is Futile.

Sorry to be the one to inform you, but IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

There will always be somwhere else for a thief to go, because most merchants play by the rules which say they may not require a customer to show ID. And those rules exist because many of us don't want to be dragged into your efforts to police every little thing we do in life.

So you believe it's OK to violate a contract you signed?

VIOLATING CREDIT CARD POLICY IS OK AS LONG AS THEY ARE PROTECTING THEMSELVES

This is GEORGE, after all.

[hegemony]

I am not a credit card thief therefore I do not show ID.

[BBQ123]

A merchant could protect themselves from theft by shooting everyone who walks in the store before they have the chance to steal, but that's against the rules (of law, of the Bible, of common sense, etc.) just like mandating an ID on signed cards is also against the rules (of merchant agreement.)

[GEORGE]

I'm always AMAZED that people think (or act) like the stolen cards are floating around for months or years

[green2408]

When a merchant has a matching signature on a sales receipt, and has followed all applicable procedures for card acceptance, chargebacks should not be a problem. Documentation is simple to retain for the proscribed period.

If the signature does not match or the transaction is suspicious for some other reason, making a code 10 call is quick and easy.

Network rules protect merchants who follow proper procedure for card acceptance. It should come as no surprise that the merchants who have a chargeback problem are those who don't understand card acceptance procedures. When their own poor compliance results in a chargeback problem, they respond with another poor practice: ID checks.

Processors and networks monitor chargeback statistics carefully, and compare them with similar merchants in the same vicinity. Any merchant whose chargeback ratio grossly exceeds applicable averages has a chargeback problem specific to that store.

Merchants can blame one of two sources for excessive chargebacks and fraud:

1. All of the thieves and criminals in a region are out to get them, specifically
2. The merchant's card acceptance procedures are poor and out of compliance

Which is more likely? Merchants love to blame the criminals for their problems, even when competing merchants fail to experience the same problems. If all of the criminals are going out of their way to defraud a specific merchant (and they probably aren't), then that merchant needs to consider why the criminals are attracted to their store and not the competition.

The bottom line is that the number of merchants who don't have a persistent chargeback problem proves that following proper card acceptance procedures protects the merchant from chargebacks.

CCTV systems are cheap, and can offer an additional level of protection against fraudulent chargebacks. Given the price of retail insurance premiums, these systems can easily pay for themselves even when chargeback losses are not factored into the cost analysis. CCTV deters theft, fraud, and frivolous liability lawsuits. Merchants have no excuse for not having a basic CCTV system.

Why should a customer be inconvenienced and put at risk through ID checks, when the underlying reason for those checks is the merchant's fault?

Transactions under $25 ("Small Ticket Program") may even be processed with no signature required, for certain merchants. Checking ID on these transactions is entirely pointless, as payment is guaranteed on these transactions as long as the merchant's account is in good standing, and chargeback ratios are under an easily attainable threshold. As far as chargeback guidelines go, a signature-free transaction counts as an automatic signature match. This class of transactions proves, once again, that merchants who attempt to require ID tend to be oblivious to card acceptance guidelines.

Great post -sensible and informative.

[2fast]

When a merchant has a matching signature on a sales receipt, and has followed all applicable procedures for card acceptance, chargebacks should not be a problem. Documentation is simple to retain for the proscribed period.

If the signature does not match or the transaction is suspicious for some other reason, making a code 10 call is quick and easy.

Network rules protect merchants who follow proper procedure for card acceptance. It should come as no surprise that the merchants who have a chargeback problem are those who don't understand card acceptance procedures. When their own poor compliance results in a chargeback problem, they respond with another poor practice: ID checks.

Processors and networks monitor chargeback statistics carefully, and compare them with similar merchants in the same vicinity. Any merchant whose chargeback ratio grossly exceeds applicable averages has a chargeback problem specific to that store.

Merchants can blame one of two sources for excessive chargebacks and fraud:

1. All of the thieves and criminals in a region are out to get them, specifically
2. The merchant's card acceptance procedures are poor and out of compliance

Which is more likely? Merchants love to blame the criminals for their problems, even when competing merchants fail to experience the same problems. If all of the criminals are going out of their way to defraud a specific merchant (and they probably aren't), then that merchant needs to consider why the criminals are attracted to their store and not the competition.

The bottom line is that the number of merchants who don't have a persistent chargeback problem proves that following proper card acceptance procedures protects the merchant from chargebacks.

CCTV systems are cheap, and can offer an additional level of protection against fraudulent chargebacks. Given the price of retail insurance premiums, these systems can easily pay for themselves even when chargeback losses are not factored into the cost analysis. CCTV deters theft, fraud, and frivolous liability lawsuits. Merchants have no excuse for not having a basic CCTV system.

Why should a customer be inconvenienced and put at risk through ID checks, when the underlying reason for those checks is the merchant's fault?

Transactions under $25 ("Small Ticket Program") may even be processed with no signature required, for certain merchants. Checking ID on these transactions is entirely pointless, as payment is guaranteed on these transactions as long as the merchant's account is in good standing, and chargeback ratios are under an easily attainable threshold. As far as chargeback guidelines go, a signature-free transaction counts as an automatic signature match. This class of transactions proves, once again, that merchants who attempt to require ID tend to be oblivious to card acceptance guidelines.

Great post -sensible and informative.

Yeah, except it's completely wrong in the real world. the merchant or card holder gets stuck paying for 90%+ of the chargebacks, not the issuer. His statements say that as long as the merchant compares the card signature to the receipt they are fine. Completely incorrect.

[2fast]

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that.

If the merchant wants to eliminate CC fraud fraud let him accept just cash/checks. Once he accepts credit cards he has to play by Visa's rules - nowhere in the agreement does it say that the merchant can selectively accept the rules. If the merchants don't like the rules let them ask Visa to scrap it - but till then checking ID is against TOS.

And if the merchant wants to eliminate theft they should keep their doors locked during business hours.
For an arguably edicated person such as yourself you sure know how to limit your perspective to what suits your argument.
I'm sure that you do everything completely within the rules set for you. Ever driven 5mph over the speed limit because you were late? Better not have, you risked my life doing it.
Let me ask you then,
Do you believe that Visa put the wording in the TOS to limit ID theft?
Do you believe Visa as a company cares if your ID is stolen?
Do you believe that if your card is fraudulantly used and the merchant has a matching signature he will be paid for the transaction?
Do you believe that Visa absorbs more than 15% of all fraud related charges?
Lests just see how blind you really are.

I can tell you that the fraud mitegation department at Visa believes that checking ID's reduces fraud. I can also tell you that the merchant base believes checking ID's reduces fraud.
For some reason you "educated" people have been brain washed and not only can't you see it, you refuse to even think of the possibility. Take your tinfoil hat off and look around, it's time to take the red pill and see what is really going on out there.
Come to one of the ETA meetings and ask some questions to the people who actually have answers rather than basing your opinions off of marketing materials. I do realize though that it'd be against the nature of many here to actually learn facts since they may dislodge your current knowledge base. You really should try it though, basing your opinions in real information in the real world really is a great feeling, though probably a little more work than staying in Georgeland and making up theories from data learned from TV commercials.

I'm sure you will go buy a Ford pickup since 1 of the 8 bolts that hold the box on can pick up the whole pickup, who cares if a box has never fallen off a chevy. I'm sure you drink the soda with the best commercial.
Boy, I should start running more adds, they can really turn smart people dumb. You guys will believe fiction and call it truth even when people who wrote the book tell you it's fiction.

Edited by 2fast, 12 January 2010 - 08:44 AM.

[LBCS]

And to answer George's question, they are protecting themselves. They need to be able to do that.

If the merchant wants to eliminate CC fraud fraud let him accept just cash/checks. Once he accepts credit cards he has to play by Visa's rules - nowhere in the agreement does it say that the merchant can selectively accept the rules. If the merchants don't like the rules let them ask Visa to scrap it - but till then checking ID is against TOS.

Do you believe that if your card is fraudulantly used and the merchant has a matching signature he will be paid for the transaction?

I am going to ignore the rest of your rant since you obviously represent the merchants point of view - but the bold part is true, is it not? I mean, if the merchant produces a signature should that not protect him against chargebacks?

[thelowpriceleader]

It is true for in person transactions where the card is swiped IF the merchant follows the procedures. This means they compare signatures. This means they do not accept unsigned cards. This means they actually send in the signature copy by the date on the copy retrieval form.

Anyone who tells you different is not following the procedures and that is why they do not get paid. Many merchants are too lazy to follow the procedures so they keep not getting paid.

[LBCS]

It is true for in person transactions where the card is swiped IF the merchant follows the procedures. This means they compare signatures. This means they do not accept unsigned cards. This means they actually send in the signature copy by the date on the copy retrieval form.

Anyone who tells you different is not following the procedures and that is why they do not get paid. Many merchants are too lazy to follow the procedures so they keep not getting paid.

That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. Obviously merchants have a different opinion since their incentives are different from customers.

[GEORGE]

So are you still feeling special when you are asked for ID

I am confused and wonder why they can't follow the credit card policy THAT THEY AGREED TO UPON SIGNING UP