So I was at an outlet mall this weekend, and I bought something with my VISA card. Now, just to stress, my VISA card has my picture on it. I have not signed the back in awhile and therefore my signature was worn off. I hand the guy the card, he turns to the back without looking at the front, like many cashiers do, and proceeds to ask me for my ID. Like usual, I tell him my photo is on the back. Usually when I do this, they turn the card over, look at it, look at me and say something like “ah, cool feature” and proceed to continue the transaction.
This guy shrugs and says “I need to see your ID.” I ask why and he responds that he has to compare the signature. My response was that was pretty goofy since my picture is on the credit card. He says he needs signature confirmation. WTF, how retarded is this policy? Like I can put a fake picture on my VISA card but not bother to be able to match the signature on my license? What is he going to match it to on the card? If the card doesn’t have the signature, the license is real and the picture on the license is fake, what signature is he going to compare it to? If It was a fake picture, my signatures are going to line up anyway, as the license is real.
I showed him my ID, but expressed clear disapproval. Is this even acceptable terms of use for VISA?
If they ask the customer to sign the card in front of them, why wouldn’t the signature match the transaction receipt they also just signed in front of them?
Presumably, the signature on your government ID (signed way back when) should match the transaction receipt. To me, that’s the real comparison. Asking someone to sign their card just so it matches against the transaction receipt just signed as well makes no sense.
I’ll tell you a secret. I used to work for a credit card issuer back in the day when they first started putting pictures on cards. A Vice President told me that the picture is sold as a “security feature” but everyone in the industry knows that’s crap. It’s just another marketing ploy to get you to take their card.
If they sign in front of you, it has to match the signature on the “additional ID” as well. :smack:
Epimetheus, the truth is that, while the card has your picture on the front for additional identification, the signature on the back remains the contractural way for the merchant to confirm you are the card holder. It’s kind of stupid (okay, it’s way beyond kinda stupid), but it’s what the contract reads. :dubious:
It’s not at all stupid as it is a form of verification that the retailer gets to keep. In the event of a dispute “I checked his ID and it was defnitely him” is not provable in any way.
Actually, no. While the signature is something the merchant keeps, and that can be used later in a dispute over identity of the card user, all that does is suggest that collecting a signature on the receipt makes sense. It does not say anything about the wisdom of trying to have a clerk determine whether or not the card holder is the authorized card user based upon comparison of a signature on the back of the card with a signature specimin provided on the receipt. Frankly, with my signature, it would be damn near impossible to spot a fraud, and that’s true of many other signatures. Further, the typical store clerk isn’t exactly a handwriting expert; heck, the typical store clerk isn’t expert at much beyond chewing gum and figuring out how not to do the work they are supposed to do.
So, here you have a card with a person’s picture on the front (I’ve seen one, and the picture is quite good, at least as good as most picture ID). A person hands you the card. The picture appears to match the card holder, but they don’t have the back of the card signed, and don’t want to sign it. Contracturally, you are obligated as the merchant to refuse the card. Given that it was the card issuer that put the picture on the card in the first place, that’s just plain silly.
Exactly - it makes sense, and that is my point. But you said it was stupid. If there is no signature, the retailer is taking all the risk (unless below a credit card company approved limit which varies by credit card and type of transaction). My whole point was about having proof that can be used later in a dispute. If there is no dispute, it does not matter what checks were done. If there is a dispute, you need evidence you can go back and verify. And the signature is best we have (outside biometrics).
(Credentials: I run a company that develops credit card software with installations in thousands of stores.)
Or develop a card that holds a signature on it. Even with ‘permanant’ marker my sig rubs off after a few months. I gave up bothering to re-apply it after the first few years. Since I buy everything with my card (to pay off later that month), It must be telling that I complain about a few isolated incidents. MOST retailers take the signature I give them and compare my picture to my face. Only the rare sticklers do otherwise. Like the USPS- which is why I get packages delivered at UPS. They want to quibble over my signature, I will take my business elsewhere.
There are two factors to consider. The first factor is trying to be certain in the first place that the card holder is the authorized user. The second factor is proving after the fact that the authorized user was the person who made the purchase.
After the fact, a signature is great. So capture it, by all means.
But at the time of purchase, a signature is a terrible method for identification. It is easily faked to the untrained eye. Compared to a photo, it’s absolutely silly. To require that the card have the signature on it, for purpose of comparison, when it already has the picture on it, is just following form over function.
In short, put the picture on the card, and capture the signature on the sales slip. Don’t require a signature on the back of the card when the picture is on the front of it.
(For what it is worth, in the case of the Citibank card I have seen, there is both the picture AND the signature on the front of the card).
My reason for putting “Check photo ID” on my credit cards seems—to me—simple. If the name embossed by the credit card company on the card matches the name on my driver’s license, and if the picture on that same driver’s license matches the face of ME, who is handing them the credit card, then doesn’t that prove it’s my credit card WAY more than a signature on the back would?
I can duplicate my parents’ signatures perfectly and used that to great advantage in my school years. It seems like it would be a LOT easier/more convenient for a thief to forge a signature than it would be to forge a driver’s license.
No one who asks me for ID during a credit card transaction is checking my signature- they are checking to see if the name on my DL and the name on my card match.
How do I know? They never turn the card over to look at the signature. Happened just this afternoon at the post office.
It doesn’t bug me- who cares? At least they are attempting to verify that it’s me using my card rather than someone else. Sure, it’s of no use if the thief took my whole frigging purse, but maybe if someone who looks nothing like me flashes my ID, someone will notice… But if it’s just a fake card with no back up and they can’t produce ID, it might work.
I once bought a car stereo from a small outfit and the clerk insisted on seeing my driver’s license for the address. He was really chatty and said things I didn’t spot at the time, like “Boy, with a car this nice I bet you keep it in the garage” “No, my garage is full of junk so it’s in the driveway.” A week later my car was broken into and the stereo removed. The cops told me this is not an uncommon way to target someone.
