Not accepting a credit card that says "See ID" on the signature panel. Feedback please.
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
57carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It protects the customer by making sure the
> signature on the back of the card matches the
> signature on the credit card statement.
this protects the credit card company. not the credit card owner.
> A thief
> would have a tougher time mimicking the signature.
my cards are already marked with SEE ID. there's no room for an additional signature.
> This is my last post on the subject.
thanks for your response.
> Several times
> last night when working, I would accept a credit
> card only to find it wasn't signed or more likely,
> the signature had worn off. I request ID.
i'm glad that you do that. especially the part about requesting the ID.
> The
> customer says, "Oh thank you, I'll sign that right
> now", or something of the sort.
thinking that it somehow protects them as opposed to the credit card company.
> I still maintain
> that an unsigned credit card is a danger.
while i maintain that an unsigned credit card is a minor danger to the credit card company, i further maintain that a signed credit card is a greater danger to the credit card owner.
i agree with everything that you're saying, but i believe that there is a greater practical priority.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It protects the customer by making sure the
> signature on the back of the card matches the
> signature on the credit card statement.
this protects the credit card company. not the credit card owner.
> A thief
> would have a tougher time mimicking the signature.
my cards are already marked with SEE ID. there's no room for an additional signature.
> This is my last post on the subject.
thanks for your response.
> Several times
> last night when working, I would accept a credit
> card only to find it wasn't signed or more likely,
> the signature had worn off. I request ID.
i'm glad that you do that. especially the part about requesting the ID.
> The
> customer says, "Oh thank you, I'll sign that right
> now", or something of the sort.
thinking that it somehow protects them as opposed to the credit card company.
> I still maintain
> that an unsigned credit card is a danger.
while i maintain that an unsigned credit card is a minor danger to the credit card company, i further maintain that a signed credit card is a greater danger to the credit card owner.
i agree with everything that you're saying, but i believe that there is a greater practical priority.
Interesting thread. Back in the day I used the "see ID" and it worked about half the time. I'm meaning 12 plus years ago. I believe both my new debit card and my MS credit card arrived around December 2011 and January 2012. I can't count the number of times both have been used for everything from hotels to retail stores to gas stations. Because of this thread I just checked both and realized neither is signed!
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
MickeyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Several of us have explained (some more than once)
> why not signing your card is dangerous and
> increases the risk that your card will be
> compromised.
I'm going to go back to my earlier point of saying that signing your name vs signing "SEE ID" vs not signing is 99.9% irrelevant to anything.
I carry 4 cards that I use on a very frequent basis (3 Visa, 1 AmEx). And by frequent I mean literally 95% of all of my household's monthly financial transactions run through one of these four cards. 2 of them are unsigned and have never been signed, 1 has the signature strip almost completely worn off to the point that the signature is almost completely gone, and one has a visible signature. I have not been prevented from using or even questioned about any of these cards in at least a year, and probably longer than that.
As for the issue of legality of the terms and conditions of the card, yes, technically not signing your card violates the T&C of the credit agreement. However, the credit card company is going to have to be presented with evidence that you didn't sign your card in order to enact this clause.
I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'm going to guess that in a majority of fraud/identity theft cases that originated with the loss/theft of the physical card, that the original physical card was not recovered. And if the card is never recovered, the signature on the back is pointless.
You are correct in saying that it is there for your protection, but it's kind of like vaccinating for a disease carried by Wooley Mammoths....it's becoming extinct. The majority of purchases anymore do not require signatures or even physical possession of the card, so what is there to verify against?
Like I said earlier, if signing/not signing/signing "SEE ID" makes you feel better, go for it. But in reality, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference in terms of security if your card gets stolen.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Several of us have explained (some more than once)
> why not signing your card is dangerous and
> increases the risk that your card will be
> compromised.
I'm going to go back to my earlier point of saying that signing your name vs signing "SEE ID" vs not signing is 99.9% irrelevant to anything.
I carry 4 cards that I use on a very frequent basis (3 Visa, 1 AmEx). And by frequent I mean literally 95% of all of my household's monthly financial transactions run through one of these four cards. 2 of them are unsigned and have never been signed, 1 has the signature strip almost completely worn off to the point that the signature is almost completely gone, and one has a visible signature. I have not been prevented from using or even questioned about any of these cards in at least a year, and probably longer than that.
As for the issue of legality of the terms and conditions of the card, yes, technically not signing your card violates the T&C of the credit agreement. However, the credit card company is going to have to be presented with evidence that you didn't sign your card in order to enact this clause.
I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'm going to guess that in a majority of fraud/identity theft cases that originated with the loss/theft of the physical card, that the original physical card was not recovered. And if the card is never recovered, the signature on the back is pointless.
You are correct in saying that it is there for your protection, but it's kind of like vaccinating for a disease carried by Wooley Mammoths....it's becoming extinct. The majority of purchases anymore do not require signatures or even physical possession of the card, so what is there to verify against?
Like I said earlier, if signing/not signing/signing "SEE ID" makes you feel better, go for it. But in reality, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference in terms of security if your card gets stolen.
That Woolly Mammoth vaccine I got last month is worthless!!!!! Damn the bad luck.
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Woolly Mammoth vaccine I got last month is
> worthless!!!!! Damn the bad luck.
Better watch out. I heard that Triceratops Flu is circulating through Missouri. Makes Swine Flu look like a cold.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Woolly Mammoth vaccine I got last month is
> worthless!!!!! Damn the bad luck.
Better watch out. I heard that Triceratops Flu is circulating through Missouri. Makes Swine Flu look like a cold.
Just thinking about it makes me woozy. I'm taking to my bed right now!
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
zlinedavid Wrote:
> I'm going to go back to my earlier point of saying
> that signing your name vs signing "SEE ID" vs not
> signing is 99.9% irrelevant to anything.
very true. my cards are virtually never checked either way. and most stores don't even require a signature on the receipt itself if the purchase is under $25.
> I'm going to go back to my earlier point of saying
> that signing your name vs signing "SEE ID" vs not
> signing is 99.9% irrelevant to anything.
very true. my cards are virtually never checked either way. and most stores don't even require a signature on the receipt itself if the purchase is under $25.
I just was at a different Post Office opening a box for a shop and they have a large sign behind the counter (about 11 x 17) that says they will not accept Credit Cards that say SEE ID on them and that are unsigned. I didn't copy the wording but the last part is in capital letters saying that credit cards that say SEE ID on them will not be honored.
Liz
Liz
Traveliz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just was at a different Post Office opening a
> box for a shop and they have a large sign behind
> the counter (about 11 x 17) that says they will
> not accept Credit Cards that say SEE ID on them
> and that are unsigned. I didn't copy the wording
> but the last part is in capital letters saying
> that credit cards that say SEE ID on them will not
> be honored.
>
> Liz
i honestly can't understand the reasoning of the post office. it is perhaps unlikely that a thief will steal my credit card and thereafter write SEE ID on it when making a purchase at the post office.
my next concern would be whether or not the post office bothers to check IDs for signed credit cards. I hope that they do.
again, my stance is that many of these rules do not actually protect the consumer, but instead protect the corporations to the consumers' actual detriment.
but of course, it's best not to sign one's credit card with SEE ID if it's goint to cost one desired mystery shopping assignments. i can also respect the shopper's need to make money, and therefore to comply with client requirements.
i just don't see it all as a significant moral issue, or even a significant legal issue for today.
in the end, i support anyone who does what they must to make honest money.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just was at a different Post Office opening a
> box for a shop and they have a large sign behind
> the counter (about 11 x 17) that says they will
> not accept Credit Cards that say SEE ID on them
> and that are unsigned. I didn't copy the wording
> but the last part is in capital letters saying
> that credit cards that say SEE ID on them will not
> be honored.
>
> Liz
i honestly can't understand the reasoning of the post office. it is perhaps unlikely that a thief will steal my credit card and thereafter write SEE ID on it when making a purchase at the post office.
my next concern would be whether or not the post office bothers to check IDs for signed credit cards. I hope that they do.
again, my stance is that many of these rules do not actually protect the consumer, but instead protect the corporations to the consumers' actual detriment.
but of course, it's best not to sign one's credit card with SEE ID if it's goint to cost one desired mystery shopping assignments. i can also respect the shopper's need to make money, and therefore to comply with client requirements.
i just don't see it all as a significant moral issue, or even a significant legal issue for today.
in the end, i support anyone who does what they must to make honest money.
This week, my husband's debit card company spotted unusual usage of his card in two states where he has not been recently. They were small (test) amounts and easily taken care of. He said that hackers can easily access the numbers. Even a large corporation was recently hacked when "workers" arrived at its branches to make "changes" to its machines. He said he violated his own rule of using only cash at mom-and-pop stores when he was traveling last week. Their systems are much easier to hack.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I just was speaking with a banker this week on another topic entirely, and mentioned I felt it was dangerous to carry around an unsigned credit card. He said not only was it dangerous, but it invalidated the card because it states right on it that not valid until signed. He said that a cc without a signature can be picked up by anyone, and then they will sign it, so that when sig is required for purchase, it will match the imposter's. Much harder to forge a decent looking signature already on it.
But, 57carol, if no one is checking for signatures anyway, what difference does it make that the thief signs the card?
At my retail store, we check each and every signature, and ask for ID if it is not signed or if the signature if blurry or worn off. I can only speak for that company.
57carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I just was speaking
> with a banker this week on another topic entirely,
> and mentioned I felt it was dangerous to carry
> around an unsigned credit card. He said not only
> was it dangerous, but it invalidated the card
> because it states right on it that not valid until
> signed.
the banker is likely speaking in the best interests of the bank and not in the best interests of the consumer.
in these scenarios which the banker has suggested, the bank is protected, the consumer is penalized and the thief is rarely affected.
the rule seems highly ethical, but is intentioned to financially protect the bank as opposed to the consumer. often when we hear a rule, we may feel more virtuous if we obey it, since we are then morally accepted by the authority which made the rule. but it is also good to understand the basis of the rule and who specifically it protects.
-
the bank(er) is naively assuming three things:
1. the cashier will first check the signature on the back of the credit card (rare at best, but possible at higher end stores with higher end purchases).
2. the cashier will secondly check the signature on the drivers license/personal ID. (rarer still than checking the signature on the credit card.) if the personal ID is not also checked along with the credit card, then it doesn't practically matter what handwriting style is used on the credit card, because it wasn't checked against another hand-signed document.
3. the cashier thirdly has appropriate calligraphy identification skill to further check the signature handwriting style against the personal ID (highly unlikely), and has not merely checked to see if the names match between the personal ID and the credit card. the names must not merely match, but the handwriting style must also match.
> He said that a cc without a signature can
> be picked up by anyone, and then they will sign
> it, so that when sig is required for purchase, it
> will match the imposter's. Much harder to forge a
> decent looking signature already on it.
this is why the words 'SEE ID' are sometimes used to fill the entire signature panel, so that a thief has no room to sign it. it also reminds the absent-minded cashier to 'SEE ID'.
once the purchase is made, the bank will not likely choose to invalidate the credit card by not paying the merchant. instead, you will be charged with the credit card bill, even if the credit card is not signed. you will still be required to pay your credit card bill, whether you sign the card or not. if the purchase on the unsigned card went through, then the card has not been invalidated.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I just was speaking
> with a banker this week on another topic entirely,
> and mentioned I felt it was dangerous to carry
> around an unsigned credit card. He said not only
> was it dangerous, but it invalidated the card
> because it states right on it that not valid until
> signed.
the banker is likely speaking in the best interests of the bank and not in the best interests of the consumer.
in these scenarios which the banker has suggested, the bank is protected, the consumer is penalized and the thief is rarely affected.
the rule seems highly ethical, but is intentioned to financially protect the bank as opposed to the consumer. often when we hear a rule, we may feel more virtuous if we obey it, since we are then morally accepted by the authority which made the rule. but it is also good to understand the basis of the rule and who specifically it protects.
-
the bank(er) is naively assuming three things:
1. the cashier will first check the signature on the back of the credit card (rare at best, but possible at higher end stores with higher end purchases).
2. the cashier will secondly check the signature on the drivers license/personal ID. (rarer still than checking the signature on the credit card.) if the personal ID is not also checked along with the credit card, then it doesn't practically matter what handwriting style is used on the credit card, because it wasn't checked against another hand-signed document.
3. the cashier thirdly has appropriate calligraphy identification skill to further check the signature handwriting style against the personal ID (highly unlikely), and has not merely checked to see if the names match between the personal ID and the credit card. the names must not merely match, but the handwriting style must also match.
> He said that a cc without a signature can
> be picked up by anyone, and then they will sign
> it, so that when sig is required for purchase, it
> will match the imposter's. Much harder to forge a
> decent looking signature already on it.
this is why the words 'SEE ID' are sometimes used to fill the entire signature panel, so that a thief has no room to sign it. it also reminds the absent-minded cashier to 'SEE ID'.
once the purchase is made, the bank will not likely choose to invalidate the credit card by not paying the merchant. instead, you will be charged with the credit card bill, even if the credit card is not signed. you will still be required to pay your credit card bill, whether you sign the card or not. if the purchase on the unsigned card went through, then the card has not been invalidated.
Personally and from experience, signing the credit card gives a thief something to practice.
Example: My mother was at a company party where she checked her purse. She said to the lady behind the counter in jest, "I only have $5, you are welcome to that but please leave the pictures of my kids." So the lady actually took her JCPenny credit card. But because my mother's signature was on the card the signature was able to be practiced for perfection. I remember getting the slips for my mother to identify as not her purchases. The theif had the signature down to almost identical. You really, really had to look to see the difference. IMHO SEE ID is much, much safer. It makes (when followed) a store look and see who you are and if you "match".
My post office has the same sign about SEE ID, at the bottom it sites because it is a violation of the credit card company to take a card that is not signed. That being said, my card was not signed, so when the clerk said this to me, I (in a smart arse way) grabbed a pen and signed the card right in front of her. I was having a bad day, not her fault, and this was not recently...I like to think I am not so hot headed now.
Example: My mother was at a company party where she checked her purse. She said to the lady behind the counter in jest, "I only have $5, you are welcome to that but please leave the pictures of my kids." So the lady actually took her JCPenny credit card. But because my mother's signature was on the card the signature was able to be practiced for perfection. I remember getting the slips for my mother to identify as not her purchases. The theif had the signature down to almost identical. You really, really had to look to see the difference. IMHO SEE ID is much, much safer. It makes (when followed) a store look and see who you are and if you "match".
My post office has the same sign about SEE ID, at the bottom it sites because it is a violation of the credit card company to take a card that is not signed. That being said, my card was not signed, so when the clerk said this to me, I (in a smart arse way) grabbed a pen and signed the card right in front of her. I was having a bad day, not her fault, and this was not recently...I like to think I am not so hot headed now.
I really don't think signing or not signing a cc does much to protect the individual. For the most part, I think the CC companies tend to at least make a effort in that regard. The few times we have had issues it has been handled quickly and efficiently.
However, policy does state that stores are not supposed to take it if it is not signed. The locations that are refusing to take it when signed "see id" are actually holding up the deal that they made with the credit card company.
If more stores begin enforcing this (which truly seems doubtful to me) then you may not be able to make purchases.
However, policy does state that stores are not supposed to take it if it is not signed. The locations that are refusing to take it when signed "see id" are actually holding up the deal that they made with the credit card company.
If more stores begin enforcing this (which truly seems doubtful to me) then you may not be able to make purchases.
57carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I just was speaking
> with a banker this week on another topic entirely,
> and mentioned I felt it was dangerous to carry
> around an unsigned credit card. He said not only
> was it dangerous, but it invalidated the card
> because it states right on it that not valid until
> signed. He said that a cc without a signature can
> be picked up by anyone, and then they will sign
> it, so that when sig is required for purchase, it
> will match the imposter's. Much harder to forge a
> decent looking signature already on it.
Ask an on-duty police officer if going 66 MPH in a 65 MPH is illegal. You got the stated legal policy, not what will apply or what is enforced in reality.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I just was speaking
> with a banker this week on another topic entirely,
> and mentioned I felt it was dangerous to carry
> around an unsigned credit card. He said not only
> was it dangerous, but it invalidated the card
> because it states right on it that not valid until
> signed. He said that a cc without a signature can
> be picked up by anyone, and then they will sign
> it, so that when sig is required for purchase, it
> will match the imposter's. Much harder to forge a
> decent looking signature already on it.
Ask an on-duty police officer if going 66 MPH in a 65 MPH is illegal. You got the stated legal policy, not what will apply or what is enforced in reality.
Enough! truce. I will sign my credit cards, and you all do what you want. I will still check for your signature when you are in my shop, and if it is not signed, I will require you (according to our company policy) to produce a photo ID.
Shelly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If more stores begin enforcing this (which truly
> seems doubtful to me) then you may not be able to
> make purchases.
if a store begins caring more about consumer safety and less about making money, then it will go out of business. if one offers money to a store, the store will likely take the money, whether or not a credit card is signed. many stores don't even waste time having consumers sign receipts for smaller purchases nowadays, let alone the backs of credit cards. requiring signatures on receipts and the backs of credit cards hurts the bottom line, because time is money.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If more stores begin enforcing this (which truly
> seems doubtful to me) then you may not be able to
> make purchases.
if a store begins caring more about consumer safety and less about making money, then it will go out of business. if one offers money to a store, the store will likely take the money, whether or not a credit card is signed. many stores don't even waste time having consumers sign receipts for smaller purchases nowadays, let alone the backs of credit cards. requiring signatures on receipts and the backs of credit cards hurts the bottom line, because time is money.
57carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough! truce. I will sign my credit cards, and
> you all do what you want. I will still check for
> your signature when you are in my shop, and if it
> is not signed, I will require you (according to
> our company policy) to produce a photo ID.
technically, the signature on the photo ID should be checked even if the credit card is signed, to verify if the two signatures match each other. if only the signature on the credit card is checked, without also verifying the signature on the photo ID, then there is no way to tell if the credit card has merely been signed by a thief.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough! truce. I will sign my credit cards, and
> you all do what you want. I will still check for
> your signature when you are in my shop, and if it
> is not signed, I will require you (according to
> our company policy) to produce a photo ID.
technically, the signature on the photo ID should be checked even if the credit card is signed, to verify if the two signatures match each other. if only the signature on the credit card is checked, without also verifying the signature on the photo ID, then there is no way to tell if the credit card has merely been signed by a thief.
57carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a few stores that require photo ID even
> if the card is signed.
If I am using a credit card which is signed, I will refuse to show ID. Things might have changed since I signed one, but it used to be against the merchant agreement to ask to see ID before processing a valid credit card (MC or Visa)
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a few stores that require photo ID even
> if the card is signed.
If I am using a credit card which is signed, I will refuse to show ID. Things might have changed since I signed one, but it used to be against the merchant agreement to ask to see ID before processing a valid credit card (MC or Visa)
This is off topic but I wanted to comment on Vince's statement:
"the rule seems highly ethical, but is intentioned to financially protect the bank as opposed to the consumer. often when we hear a rule, we may feel more virtuous if we obey it, since we are then morally accepted by the authority which made the rule. but it is also good to understand the basis of the rule and who specifically it protects."
This statement is one of my life ethos in general, whether it is a bank or any other rule or policy.
I also concur with the statement by zlinedavid:
"Ask an on-duty police officer if going 66 MPH in a 65 MPH is illegal. You got the stated legal policy, not what will apply or what is enforced in reality."
My attitude about rules is: "What is not expressly prohibited, is permitted" as opposed to "What is not expressed permitted, is prohibited".
"the rule seems highly ethical, but is intentioned to financially protect the bank as opposed to the consumer. often when we hear a rule, we may feel more virtuous if we obey it, since we are then morally accepted by the authority which made the rule. but it is also good to understand the basis of the rule and who specifically it protects."
This statement is one of my life ethos in general, whether it is a bank or any other rule or policy.
I also concur with the statement by zlinedavid:
"Ask an on-duty police officer if going 66 MPH in a 65 MPH is illegal. You got the stated legal policy, not what will apply or what is enforced in reality."
My attitude about rules is: "What is not expressly prohibited, is permitted" as opposed to "What is not expressed permitted, is prohibited".
zlinedavid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LisaSTL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That Woolly Mammoth vaccine I got last month is
> > worthless!!!!! Damn the bad luck.
>
>
> Better watch out. I heard that Triceratops Flu is
> circulating through Missouri. Makes Swine Flu
> look like a cold.
Just a quick note: A recent news items says that there might not ever have been a triceratops. It might be a mistake! So, no triceratops flu. Oh, I'm a wet blanket....
-------------------------------------------------------
> LisaSTL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That Woolly Mammoth vaccine I got last month is
> > worthless!!!!! Damn the bad luck.
>
>
> Better watch out. I heard that Triceratops Flu is
> circulating through Missouri. Makes Swine Flu
> look like a cold.
Just a quick note: A recent news items says that there might not ever have been a triceratops. It might be a mistake! So, no triceratops flu. Oh, I'm a wet blanket....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.