I'M SORRY, I'M NOT BUYING IT.

IMO, it's all good to comply and it gives us one less card to carry, as in ID, but seriously give it some thought, wouldn't this be like writing down you're pin on your ATM card?

Our signature is one of our most valuable things, several years ago many major banks implemented policies of not copying anyone's signature, if they made a photo copy it would have the signature blacked out.

Imagine someone sitting down with you're signed card, better yet imagine a thief sitting down with you're signed card (a very sharp thief) they sit with pen and paper in hand and copy and practice your signature 20 or 30 if not 50 or more times, they now have it down enough to go into 99.9% of the retailers in the world or countryside who are obviously not signature experts and pass it off well enough, and they didn't need a picture ID either, LOL jeez this is all such nonsense I'm sorry, I’m I the only one or the first person this consider this? Or look at this supposed for you're protection BS garbage?

I think what it really comes down to is that if a card isn't signed we are not bound to their terms should any snafu transpire which might give us additional rights, are we not agreeing to be at the mercy of their terms by signing? (all other consumber rights out the window) but hey it's for our protection...... Give that some careful thought.

The title of this thread should actually be what a tangled web they weave when at first they practice to deceive.

Agree 100%

Most thieves can pass off a similar signature immediately, but won't be able to obtain a fake ID before you cancel the cards.

If you do not sign your card you may lose some or all of your dispute rights.


Regardless of whether you want to show id or not, you should always sign the back.

Agreed.

Signing the card means you agree to all of their terms, - as in everything, be it in you're favor or against you're better interest, it's a real catch 22 if you think about it.

Look at this again.....

Signing the card means you agree to all of their terms
In my mind this would be the main reason they (Visa) want the cards signed, not to do us any favors, it's a projected abundance mentality I'll admit that, but what does it really amount to? lol Our signature is on their card so we are bound by their terms

I am not against signing the card, to each is own, there are advantages as I said, not having to carry the extra ID card, there are also dangers. Personally I think this is a good subject for debate.

I realize Visa claims that if you do not sign you're card and it falls into someone elses hands they can sign it themselves (who would be so brain-dead eh?) and then sign for purchase, ok so there's one possibility.

Tell ya what, I have my own idea's about this.

Would it really be any harder for the card to fall into the wrong hands and have them practice to duplicate you're signature? I really don't think so.

I'm thinking Visa wants the John Hancock on the card as one more assurance of our responsibility, lame in my mind, the card in our name should be good enough, but if you think about it, they don't really get a signature from us otherwise anywhere else now do they......

FOR MY PROTECTION...I DON'T SHOW ID

EVEN MY SOCKDRAWER CARDS ARE SIGNED WITH MY SIGNATURE

NOT CID GARBAGE!!!!

GEORGE we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. (obvioulsy doesn't mean we're at odds or anything) we're entitled to our individual opinions.

I DO NOT sign my cards, I write "PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION" on the backs of them so no one else can pencil in their signature. I drive everywhere I don't mind carrying my drivers license.

No, you're not the only one who sees this. There are several of us here who know that a signature is the absolute worst form of identification, and the absolute easiest to get around. It's virtually meaningless. I think someone could sit down and practice most signatures only 5-10 times and be more than good enough to get by most cashiers. Especially when you consider that most electronic pad signatures are nowhere close to even the right person's signature.

The part I highlight below in red is a very good point...



Why do some insist that VISA is our friend? That's the most absurd notion. They're a company, whose purpose is to make money. Period.

I like the phrase "projected abundance mentality", btw.



Having said all that, I do believe that you should still sign the card, if only because "the rules" say you're supposed to, and to keep a thief from doing it themself. However, I have no problem with people adding "See ID", or some other similar phrase, if they want. Calling them names simply because they feel it gives them an extra level of security or assurance is out of line.

I prefer to not show ID, for two reasons. One, I do see the potential (albiet extremely unlikely) for ID theft, and two, I'm a very private person and choose to remain that way.

JMHO, you should still sign your cards. Nothing wrong with doing both, but they still should be signed.

As in signing them either with your personal signature or signing them as "PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION" so l ong as they are signed!

Visa is our friend beause they don't hold us liabile for fraud. They go beyond federal law (you can be held liable for $50 under federal law)

SORRY YOU WANT TO USE A "VOID" CARD

YOU HAD YOUR LEGAL NAME CHANGED TO--->"PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION" IN COURT???

What happens if you go to a place like USPS that follows the merchant agreement fully and won't take the card unless you sign it?

I don't get why people have such a hard time signing their cards. The credit card companies tell you to sign the card because it lowers fraud and saves them money which can save you money.

"VOID IF NOT SIGNED"

"NOT VALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE"

"AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE"

ALL ARE JUST THERE TO WASTE INK???

On one hand, on the other we are Visa's life blood, if the relationship were too risky I guess we might all find another gig, say MasterCard.

I am far, far, from bashing Visa; pro or anti anything here, just saying folks might be wise to read between the lines.

How'd you guess!

GEORGE point me to a link somewhere that says the card is voided or junk from signing "PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION" on the back instead of John Hancock?

While you're getting fired up on this one, let me ask you in return "DO YOU SIGN OR WRITE YOUR PIN NUMBER ON THE BACK OF YOU'RE ATM AS WELL?" I do what I do with good reason, I have a strong opinion on this, I am not a sheep. To each is own, I respect the belief of others, even if different from my own.

Touché

"VOID IF NOT SIGNED"

"NOT VALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE"

"AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE"

PRINTED ON THE CARD

How can a chicken scratch signature or scribble validate the card more than "PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION"

Some people literally scribble their signature, maybe it just looks like "PLEASE SEE IDENTIFICATION"

Call me crazy I'm just concerned about the card falling into the wrong hands and someone learning to copy the signature on a signed card and then having a hay day with it because of the policy which I feel is a setup and recipe for disaster.

Here is my stance on this situation...

First of all, nobody HAS to use CC's. Each of us who does, makes our own decision to do so, for whatever reason. If apply for, activate, and use a Visa/MC/AmEx/Disc/Diners/Insert Card Here, I enter into an agreement with them. They stipulate the conditions for the product they issue. IF I choose to enter that agreement, then I CHOOSE to abide by the conditions of the agreement.

The reason many of us like George, myself, and much of this community operate entirely on CCs (NO CASH/DEBIT/RETAIL CHECKS) is because it offers us the most AVAILABLE protection. Do I agree that sig verification is a great form of protection, NO, but it's not MY CHOICE what method is used. That is up to the card issuer. I CHOSE to enter the agreement and follow the conditions.

As for ID checking. This does nothing to protect me. If I show MY ID when I checkout, I've just displayed a LARGE amount of private information. Let's face it, if a 16-21 yr old kid on the street came up to me, and demanded my DOB, ADDRESS, DL #, etc, i'd laugh in his face. So why would I show it to him because he got a retail job? No thanks.

I agree a better verification system could improve upon signatures. HOWEVER, sig verification DOES NOT HURT ME. The issuer can take the hit if there is fraud. I only use products with 0% liability for fraud/theft/etc. Ultimately, the issuer who MADE and AGREED to those terms takes the hit. It hurts their bottom line, not mine. If it weren't for these conditions, CCs would be no safer than other forms of currency, and I WOULD NOT use them exclusively.

Exactly.

The reason I sign my card is because I agreed to sign the card a part of the cardholder agreement. Also, the card is void if I don't sign it.

Theif takes cash, you have zero protection. You lose it, it's gone. Thief takes CC, you have protection. It's not perfect. It's better than nothing.

Thief takes cash, they get the $100 or $1000 they took, Thief takes CC with 25K limit they potentially just charged 3 new Quads from the Honda dealer for 10 or 15K+ and get away with it they practice you're sig for a couple of hours first because you signed the card Now you fight with CC co for the next 18 months to resolve the issue, or less, or longer..... Potentially winds up costing you thousands in interest rates, lost rewards and other side effect ramifications, and you didn't have the additional 25K of credit you needed to help with a second property purchase.

You sign the card "PLEASE SEE PICTURE ID" or didn't sign the card, - thief stole it and the merchants (Maybe at Honda we'll say) actually do their job and look at the card and realize it's

A. not signed and refuse the transaction
B. realize the card says "PLEASE SEE PICTURE ID" on the back and refuse the transaction.
C. A small purchase is made and merchant doesn't do their job and look at the back of the card, either way it's a lose / lose. Visa might be wise to start reading here and playing get smart!

-------------------
Play the entire tape out, not the short form sugar coated Visa hype version.

Just because we found a way to be smart and power play the 5 dollar an hour power back doesn't mean it's not a poor policy. I personally think they should require a picture ID

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE PEOPLE.

YOU ARE NOW A LEMMING???

THE FRAUD IS REVERSED WITHIN 2 BUSINESS DAYS

You don't have to pay any interest on charges that are fraudulent.

I've heard of people fighting a lagit dispute for months, can you only imagine if someone has signed for you and forged you're signature and the CC, co doesn't know what to think or who to believe.

LOL, you're the best POP!

Always?

You do know, of course, that they reserve the right to "re-charge" you should they decide it was legitimate to begin with, right? And, yes, it does happen sometimes.

Good luck buying a large ticket item requiring registration like a quad without identification.

Compare apples to apples. $25k spendable. $25k Cash vs. $25k CL CC. We carry CC's for a reason.

I also have one other issue with the ID situation. Hypothetically, if I manage to lose my CC, I am in someway responsible for losing it. It is also my responsibility to notify the CC company it's lost. Carrying a CC brings with it responsibility, and we must own up to that. It is my MISTAKE that could cost me IF for some reason the CCC finds the fraudulent charges to be legit. However...

IF I show ID, I am being FORCED into a situation which opens me to identity theft, etc. If showing ID was mandated, I'd have no choice but to open myself up to that potential problem. It would be out of my hands, where at least it's up to me to manage to lose a CC.

First off, EyKay

You have valid points of merit.

You also have a strong personal opinion I respect that, I appreciate mutual respect in kind.

I appreciate opinions this is a serious subject which merits substancial debate.

For the sake of debate we purchased a used auto last year and paid with CC's from a used lot, (reputable dealer too no less, a shyster lot could really wreak havoc on the fail-safes) we were not required to show ID, (everyone can bet this got me thinking and led me to ultimately making this post) the lead sales dog was the type who said take the car and drive it and see if you like it, obviously I'm an ethical person, I filled out everything honestly and accurately, being a the devils advocate I realize that real scam artists and thieves could do some serious damage armed with enough information.

We are comparing apples to oranges IMO, both are a fruit but different. ETA: with so many variables and possibilities who can really prove or test it except in speculation and theory? God maybe.

Side-bar;
Being right is over rated IMO. (GENERAL PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR EVERYONE)

Sometimes to each is own is , and agreeing to disagree is wise.

Personally I say Visa needs more data, as do we all.

We are moving toward a cashless society, I want the best and safest for all of us, that in mind.

playthecreditgame;

I like you're style.

You're not the average bear shrewdness, actually helped catalyze me to initiate.

You have 60 days to report the fraud... though if you lose a card or have it stolen I would report ASAP.

And how can they re-charge you for something that was fraudulent when you've already told them it was fraudulent.

They can't charge you more than $50 legally for fraudulent charges... would a credit card company really risk breaking federal law over such a small amount?

Here’s the thing BBQ, just because this is written by any company, does it mean that’s the real deal?

Cookie cutter written or spoken policy surely doesn't mean that’s how it actually goes down?

Check it out.

The only way to test this would be for me to like throw my credit card on the ground on a busy sidewalk and then wait a few days before reporting it lost and see what happens.

Of course, if I did that, I wouldn't be protected because the cardholder agreement requires that you take reasonable measures to safeguard your card... and dropping it on purpose is not safeguarding it.

Don't do that! whatever you do.

Just keep doing what you're doing and keep an open mind man.

DO YOU HAVE PROOF OTHERWISE???

obviously I won't do that.

I have known people who lost cards and it was never a hassle to get stuff reversed when there was fraud..

In fact before the days of zero-liability when you could be held liable for $50, some banks would not even hold you liable for the $50 as they figure you'll be happier not having to pay 50 bucks.

NO! do I need it at t his point to qualify this?

www.creditboards.com Check it out.

So, they just take anyone's word for it. It was fraudulent because someone called and said so. Is that it?



And you've heard credible people right here on Creditboards say that they have had great hassle in getting these things straightened out... some of them never getting them straightened out. Do you not believe these people?

Do you believe that everybody in the world is inherently good and honest?

Thank you.

It is fraudulent to dispute something as fraud if it wasn't really fraud.

And the burden of proof is not on you to prove that your claim of fraud isn't fraud.



I know that some banks are better than others at fixing fraud... and that in recent years it has gotten better versus 10 years ago when we didn't have zero-liability.

Amazing. It's that easy? This gives me an idea. I'm going to write my legislators and suggest that they make murder illegal. That's a really important subject, ya know, and maybe if we just told people to not do that... oh, wait... what? It already is illegal? But, if it's illegal, why are there still people being murdered? Next thing you know people will start lying under oath in court and they'll have to pass a law against that. What? People lie? They already have a law against that? Why would they need a law against lying in court? What is the world coming to?



I take it, then, that yes, you really do believe that everybody is inherently good and incapable of lying. But, guess what... many people lie, and they lie for the most trivial things, and companies know this. They have experience on their side. They've been burned before. This little bit of knowledge is why companies don't just take someone's word for it and erase a charge simply because someone said so. No, they do an investigation. They'll give the credit right away, but they reserve the right to reinstate it should they deem otherwise after their investigation is complete. Yes, most people are basically honest, and usually won't have a problem, but it is also not uncommon for an honest person to get caught in a bureaucratic web with no escape.

Hope is not lost. I have a suggestion...

Step away from the computer, and go forth into the world, and meet some people. Start a business. Deal with govenment bureaucracy first-hand. Maybe work for a consumer-advcocate and help people with their issues. Come back in about a year and you won't be saying the same things with such wide-eyed sincerety.



It's not a court of law. Proof isn't required. All they have to do is reasonably believe the charges were not fraudulent and you will be re-charged. At that point, it's now up to you to prove that they were.

You are absolutely most welcome.

It is what it is man.

Once you notify the bank that the charges are fraudulent they can only hold you liable for $50 max under federal law. Is the bank going to risk losing a customer for life over $50?

IF ... they agree that the charges really are fraudulent. All bets are off if they think your claim is fraudulent and/or the charges legitimate.

And, yes, banks, and other businesses, routinely blow-off customers for far less than $50 if they think they're right.

The best reply I've seen so far. In the military, if you lose your ID you get punished because of the ID theft danger. Credit cards should be no different. If you lose your credit card its your own fault! We're lucky to get any kind of fraud protection for them. CCCs could just say "Use at your own risk" and save themselves the money and time.

FEDERAL LAW says they can only charge you $50. There could be $10,000 dollars of fraud and you only pay $50 under federal law.



Back in the old days you used to be liable for the full ammount! Then federal law restricted it to the first $50. Now Visa/MC/AmEx give us zero-liability.