I consider myself very good about keeping accountability of my credit cards. If they are not where they are supposed to be I will call and cancel the missing card. (Haven’t had to do this for over 4 years) For the most part, I feel it slows down the transaction to have to show my ID to someone who, at best, will only give it a quick glance.
Mrs Sgt Schwartz has “check ID” written on the signature space on all her cards. On almost every occasion she uses her card at a location that does not have a POS card reader, she is asked for her ID (she has it out anyway).
So, my question is: Could I print “No ID required,” or “Bearer Instrument” so I do not have to show my ID? Would the card be valid, or could a retailer refuse to accept the card if I refuse to show ID (and yes, I know the retailer can refuse any type of payment, but would this be a legitimate action for the retailer)?
Checking your ID is not for your protection. Its for their protection. Refusing to show your ID only makes the process longer, which defeats your goal. If you’re really interested in speeding up the process, hand the clerk your ID with your card.
If it’s a matter of corporate policy (like at Best Buy), what’s to be accomplished by arguing the merits of the practice with a teenage clerk? Just have your ID out and show it to them.
And yes, I’d suspect that if you refused to show your ID on request, merchants would refuse to accept your card.
No, it doesn’t mean a damned thing. The retailer has a strong interest in protecting itself from charges related to a stolen credit card and still needs to check id. To think otherwise is idiocy because you aren’t the one responsible in the event of theft or fraud.
What would make you think that everyday penmanship from an unknown source would make people ignore simple and necessary security verification? Should you be able to spray paint “CAR NOT STOLEN” on the side of your vehicle to prevent the police from checking your registration when you get stopped?
Is this Best Buy corporate policy?
Has anyone bothered reporting this to VISA? Merchants are under contract to NOT do this.
I’m inclined to go down there, buy something easily returnable, complain to my bank that they check IDs, and then return the item.
I REALLY hate that chain with a passion.
This is my understanding as well, actually if the signature line says ‘check ID’, and the person does not sign their name as ‘check id’ then the merchant should refuse the transaction as the signatures don’t match. If the signature panel is unsigned then, and only then they can ask for ID and watch you sign it, then compare the ID to your signature.
You are not required to show your ID; all you are are required to do is sign your name. You signature is all the credit card company needs.
When they ask me for ID, I refuse. If they insist, I tell them to cancel the sale. It’s surprising how quickly they change their tune when you say that.
Also remember: when a retailer says they’re doing something for your protection or convenience, they are actually doing it for their protection or convenience.
Just out of curiosity, what’s to be gained by not showing your ID? I actually appreciate it when a merchant cards me, especially when I’m making a big purchase. It’s for their protection, sure, but it’s also for mine. What’s the objection to this process?
The advantage is convenience and privacy.
Convenience… you don’t have to bother pulling out the ID.
Privacy… this way, your date of birth, medical conditions and home address are not exposed to business employees.
The stores do it for their protection, not yours.
If you didn’t buy it, one call to the CC company, and the invoice goes away, and the merchant pays.
Yeah, essentially burden of proof is on the merchant.
One time I couldn’t for the life of me remember what a CC charge was for.
I called up the bank for help figuring out what it was for. After my not recognizing anything they read to me from their system for about 90 seconds, the nice lady told me she was going to start a dispute process.
A couple of weeks later, the bank mailed me a copy of my signature, and I was satisfied. Can’t remember the business now, but their corporate name was unrelated to the name attached to their retail outlets…
You may have misunderstood my earlier post. It’s not that all charges go away if you dispute them, but it is that all charges without your signature go away.
You asked how this was fair to the merchant.
I won’t answer at depth, since GQ isn’t really about moral issues, but:
It’s fair because the merchant willingly agreed to the contract they signed with the CC companies and agents thereof, which spells the arrangements out.
You come to dinner at my house, you get asparagus and a plate of fresh brains. Don’t want the asparagus and fresh brains, you don’t have to come to my house.
One could make arguments that the CC vendors are behaving like a cartel over this, etc, but what I outlined above, aside from the part about eating brains, is what the CC companies would tell you.
Well, many credit cards have provision to have your mugshot printed on them. Seems a good way to go. They can verify that it is you without you having to hand over personal info which they don’t really need.
That’s fine. But I will NOT sell anything to a credit card user who does not present ID. I don’t care if merchants are contractually forbidden from asking for ID. MY BOSSES make sure that I ask for ID via random video surveillance. If I don’t ask, I can be terminated. As long as the people I work for insist, I MUST SEE ID.
I simply don’t understand people who object to showing ID for a card purchase. Have you never had a credit card stolen? Or do you not care about liability, because a cardholder is legally only responsible for $50 worth of fraudulent charges? The people I work for must protect themselves, and until VISA and Mastercard start sending out operatives to make sure that we don’t ask for ID, they will insist that I ask for it.
I have spent upwards of $400 at Wal-Mart, and not been asked for ID for a card. If YOU were responsible for the cost of fraudulent charges, would’t that scare you?
And I don’t care about your bosses, and why should I- as long as they violate the contract we mutually have with the CC company. If I can’t trust them to honor their contract, can I trust them not to sell my CC number?
As a Brit I am bemused about all this. The UK and the rest of Europe have now adopted Chip and Pin for both credit and debit cards. No worrying about signatures or showing IDs . You just enter your four digit PIN in the shop terminal and that’s it.
Fellow Brit here. The banks here are also introducing chip and pin for online banking. They’re planning to send all their customers a small cardreader which connects to the computer. All money transfers from accounts will require pin numbers.
How do you know that this practice is in violation of their contract? Have you read it? :dubious:
Visa makes custom contracts depending on the size and type of business. For example, they keep a lower commission for businesses that operate on low profit margins (eg gas stations). Maybe their contract with Best Buy allows them to check for ID.
I found this on Visa’s website under “card and PIN safety”
I submit that if requesting ID was always a violation of Visa’s terms and conditions, Visa itself would not recommend that you display ID when a merchant requests it.
FTR, I was actually looking for proof that merchants are not allowed to ask for ID, couldn’t find that, and found the above quote instead. Maybe someone else’s google-fu will pick up something I didn’t.