Vendors asking for ID for CC

[Andy636]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
If they are going to ask for your card and ID, why do they put the card swipe on the customer side of the counter for you to swipe?


Because if you give your CC to some cashier to swipe it on his side of the counter he might do the regular swipe and then a 2nd one through a reader that can store all your card's infos that can be later used to clone your card.

 

[xfactor9]

Lol, someone has really thin skin. The store doesn't know you. You're a stranger. It's reasonable for them to take measures to reduce theft, which hurts them. Maybe you should run a business sometime and you'll see how many thieves and deadbeats there are out there. Do you think everyone's an angel?

 

[Malo83]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Do you .....

snip


....


Good grief.

I'm sorry, but this really gave me a good chuckle this morning. You are always so focused on all things economic, that I have to think, that if this were your business, you would require *two* forms of ID to combat a possible fraud loss that you might have to eat.

I pick my battles.

I have so many other important and meaningful things going on, petty stuff like this never even hits my radar screen.

Bingo!

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I'm amazed that people don't get that this is implied guilt until proven innocent.


It implies nothing of the sort. Given the massive amount of credit card fraud, some merchants are simply asking for the additional step (or hassle, in your words) of showing a second form of ID to prove that you are the rightful owner of the credit card.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


It's not to protect you, and it is in violation of the agreement. It implies that I am a crook, yet a crook could easily use the card for fraudulent activity in other ways. So all it does is create unnecessary hassle.


You're partially right-it is not to protect the card holder. The card holder has no direct liability for fraudulent purchases made on their card. However, the merchant gets charged back when they take a card that was used fraudulently. So if you were using the card fraudulently, the merchant would be on the hook for the items you stole.

I understand that you don't know how a business works; I know you don't realize the impact to the bottom line of a business when cards are fraudulently used. But for both large and small businesses it is can be a very large amount of money out of their profits every month. As a business owner, I have to take that into account when I set my pricing. And when you make a purchase from me, be it in cash or with a credit card, you pay for the fraud chargebacks that I've received. Now if my fraud chargebacks are low or non-existent my prices will reflect that and I'll pass those savings on to you. However if I'm in a business that has a high level of fraud chargebacks or I simply didn't take measures to protect myself, you'll pay for it in higher prices.

Or you can just show that extra form of ID and make it easy for both of us.

 

[eljefino]

^ except for merchants signed contracts with the intermediary banks saying they'd follow Visa/MC/Amex's rules like not requiring ID if there's a clear signature. An informed customer is a pain in the tuckus...

The banks know shoppers with plastic spend ~15% more (varies from one retail sector to another on how impulsive people are) and are quick to point this out to merchants. So merchants have to decide if they'll take the good of extra sales with the bad of the hassles and fraud.

I argued with my dad for years when he sold stuff on ebay and didn't take paypal (until they made him.) His counterargument was, "well, it sold..."

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
^ except for merchants signed contracts with the intermediary banks saying they'd follow Visa/MC/Amex's rules like not requiring ID if there's a clear signature. An informed customer is a pain in the tuckus...

The banks know shoppers with plastic spend ~15% more (varies from one retail sector to another on how impulsive people are) and are quick to point this out to merchants. So merchants have to decide if they'll take the good of extra sales with the bad of the hassles and fraud.

I argued with my dad for years when he sold stuff on ebay and didn't take paypal (until they made him.) His counterargument was, "well, it sold..."


I guess you and I have differing values. I don't have any problem taking an extremely minor extra step if it means cutting back on fraud.

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted By: Rolla07
I never use my credit card at the pump since it holds funds...i think thats a bigger issue.


In the states there is a pre-authorization for a dollar. If that goes through you fill up with the amount you like. It may cut off at $75 or so.

I wrote the words "see id" next to my signature since I don't want some thief scamming the system. Very few clerks would ask for my id which I wanted them to do. Of course I don't have my SS# on my DL which is optional in Ohio.

 

[xfactor9]

Do you guys also get offended knowing that most stores have surveillance cameras? Or that some have undercover security posing as customers who watch you?

They're assuming you're a potential thief. Time to complain to the cashier about this injustice

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
^ except for merchants signed contracts with the intermediary banks saying they'd follow Visa/MC/Amex's rules like not requiring ID if there's a clear signature. An informed customer is a pain in the tuckus...

The banks know shoppers with plastic spend ~15% more (varies from one retail sector to another on how impulsive people are) and are quick to point this out to merchants. So merchants have to decide if they'll take the good of extra sales with the bad of the hassles and fraud.


EXACTLY. Amazing how many others here would gripe over all kinds of political/gun/other hot topic stuff here if they could yet are total sheep when it comes to this. And for the record, I gripe about the mm wave irradiation, and NEVER go through those at the airport.

The issue isnt cutting back on fraud, per se. Everybody wants that. Thing is, all the "business" arguments are completely weak, because there are so many other unverified ways for crooks to rip off with a CC number that it becomes a silly exercise. If the businesses REALLY cared about cutting fraud, they would have implemented far more secure systems years ago like they have in Europe, so all that "I know how to run a business and you dont" type rhetoric is ridiculous.

What bugs me is that they say its to protect me when it absolutely isnt. I get it that businesses try to hire absolute bottom of the barrel cheapest labor sometimes, but dont make blatant lies about it. Its not to protect me if my CC has been stolen. The very few times Ive ever seen a questionable transaction over the last two decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars charged, about five minutes of work and its gone. I guess others use banks that have absolutely horrible service; perhaps they should shop around.

Fraud is horrible, but if people actually cared about cutting back on it, they would implement more secure means of charging transactions, not this half-baked approach which is inconsistent with their agreed upon protocols and with a million other means of charging to the cards in a fraudulent means.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
I understand that you don't know how a business works; I know you don't realize the impact to the bottom line of a business when cards are fraudulently used. But for both large and small businesses it is can be a very large amount of money out of their profits every month.


Really? That's totally laughable, because this was a gas station. If I had swiped at the pump, the card could have been stolen and there were NO protocols or protections. I go inside, smile at the camera, hand over the card, and Im magically a crook that has to justify my innocence and desire to purchase is on the level? What a ridiculous argument. I wonder what method the crooks are going to use...

And given that most retail is going to self-checkout, it is ever more obvious that this is merely spotty, incorrect interpretation and they DONT care.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


What bugs me is that they say its to protect me when it absolutely isnt. I get it that businesses try to hire absolute bottom of the barrel cheapest labor sometimes, but dont make blatant lies about it. Its not to protect me if my CC has been stolen.


There are mid-levels of training in all manner of companies and it's easy to confuse, on purpose or through ignorance, company policy vs. "the law". The clerk handling your card may very well believe it *is* the law to check ID, because it was drilled in her head. Maybe even by a former employer at a different retail outlet!

On a similar vein I was told by my (former) bank that it was absolutely, positively illegal for me to log into my joint checking account under my wife's login. Though it's actually plausible-- I'm not up on nuances of banking law-- I gave up on that bank and its perpetual online banking password lockouts, so this was my self-invented workaround. Nevertheless, it's poor customer service to accuse the customer of doing something (purposefully) illegal and combined with my other hassles I fired that bank.

 

[99Saturn]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The very few times Ive ever seen a questionable transaction, about five minutes of work and its gone. I guess others use banks that have absolutely horrible service; perhaps they should shop around.

So, help me understand, you're using a CC or bank that credits the charge that is questionable (I interpret that as believed fraud, is it something else?) and doesn't replace the card? I find that pretty strange if that's the case.

Care to share what institution has this practice, because that's not my experience with Discover or Amex, and personally I would want to stay away.

 

[bdcardinal]

At least in CA, gas stations ask for your ZIP code when you swipe at the pump. That is an exception to the not being allowed to ask for ID rule because there is no human present to double check the transaction.

I was reading a funny story about a guy who would draw pictures on the electronic card readers instead of his signature to prove that the cashiers never read them. It got to the point that he was drawing a certain part of the male anatomy to get a cashier to question it.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 99Saturn
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The very few times Ive ever seen a questionable transaction, about five minutes of work and its gone. I guess others use banks that have absolutely horrible service; perhaps they should shop around.

So, help me understand, you're using a CC or bank that credits the charge that is questionable (I interpret that as believed fraud, is it something else?) and doesn't replace the card? I find that pretty strange if that's the case.

Care to share what institution has this practice, because that's not my experience with Discover or Amex, and personally I would want to stay away.


Absolutely a new card is issued and charges are reversed. But it is done VERY fast and with minimal hassle.

Once over ten years ago we had a pair of jeans bought in OK and shipped to the Ukraine. That one we called the store and figured out the details. The other two times have been beyond fast and simple to get a new card number and going again.

 

[KD0AXS]

It really doesn't annoy me when I get asked for ID, it's the way they do it that annoys me. In almost every case, they ask for ID only AFTER your card has been swiped and authorized. At that point, it doesn't much matter. The purchase has already been completed. If they're going to ask for ID, they should be doing it BEFORE they swipe your card.

 

[MNgopher]

Frankly, I don't care if they ask for an ID. My wallets out anyways and how terrible they put a face with the signature on an official document. The horror! It is not as if they are taking a picture of my ID or otherwise making some other recording of my ID.

At least in Visa's case, their literature to retailers specifically tells them they can ask for ID, though they recommend not to. As has been pointed out, Visa's policy requires the retailer to accept the card if the purchaser refuses and the card is valid and signed. Go ahead and report them, but as I said, it doesn't bother me and I have better things to worry about.

As far as the retailer assuming you are guilty, do we also get bent out of shape when passing through rfid sensors when entering and leaving a retailer? Get bent out of shape over multiple security cams? Retailers requiring ID to write a check (though checks are almost dead for retailers)? Having store security personnel who sometimes tail or otherwise may follow you in their store? Having "greeters" at the door who actually serve as a shoplifting deterrent?

The reality is fraud in its many shapes and forms costs retailers way more money than is even fathomable. I don't fault them for taking measures to keep their losses to a reasonable level.

 

[saberz]

My cards are all signed with "check id"

Guess what? They don't check!

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: Anies
My cards are all signed with "check id"

Guess what? They don't check!


If they really follow the merchandisers agreement they are supposed to refuse the card if that is written on the back. Technically they are supposed to call the number on the back and inform the card company that it is marked "see id" so they can send another one out to you to actually sign.

I also don't check ID because it violates our merchandiser's agreement with the card company.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
If they really follow the merchandisers agreement they are supposed to refuse the card if that is written on the back.

From what I gather in this thread, PIN cards aren't very common when it comes to credit cards in the States yet?

 

[rjundi]

Just saying but you seem to really get frustrated about a lot of little stuff in life. Maybe the internet is an outlet for it.

Do you really think the retailer workers honestly care if a card is good or not or want to bother you. Somebody forces them.