I have never signed my credit cards, except to write “Please see I.D.” In that time, cashiers have looked at the back of the card and asked to see my I.D. approximately 1 in a 1000 times. Usually they just never look. Not once has my card been refused for lack of signature.
This is exactly the problem with the current system. And the criminals who commit CC fraud are well aware of this. Putting “SEE ID” on the back of your card makes you feel like you are doing something to protect yourself, but it does very little in reality other than to make you feel proactive. However, the onus is on the merchants to adhere to proper CC acceptance procedures, but they aren’t doing it for the most part. And the worst part is that customers generally aren’t complaining about it. They want to run in, pay and run out again as quickly as possible, and if that means the clerk doesn’t bother checking the signature, so be it. Stupid.
Then you have never used it at the Post Office, where they post signs warning customers that they will not accept them unsigned.
Saying “See ID” does you no good. There are three possibilities: Your card will be refused, which, by the agreement, it should be, your card will be accepted without question, which, by anecdote, is common, and a violation of the agreement, AND potentially resulting in fraud, or your card will be accepted only after you provide identification with a photo, which will violate the agreement, and which can often result in fraud anyway, since even photo ID isn’t conclusive (“I shaved that beard off,” etc.). In retail, I cannot tell you the number of times that I saw photos on drivers’ licenses that looked very little like the person offering the ID.
Somewhat related:
Several years ago I tried to withdraw money from a bank ATM, which promptly ate my bankcard. A teller inside told me to return the following day after they had emptied the machine and they would return it to me.
When I returned the next day and asked for my card, an employee looked at it, saw that it was unsigned, and refused to hand it to me. Said it was their policy not to return unsigned bank cards. Nevermind that my name was on the card, I had a photo I.D., and I had an account at that bank. Nope, not giving it to you. You have to call and request a new one.
I don’t know whether that’s still practiced, or widespread, but something to consider. In retrospect, I guess it’s good that I didn’t assault the bank teller.
It’s a pretty widespread violation, at least around here. I get asked for my ID at least half the time I use my credit card, even though it’s signed. Every time, I tell myself, “Next time, I’m gonna put up a fight”… but no.
I always love that argument that “if you sign your card they will have a sample of your signature”…as if your average thief is going to bother spending time practicing how to forge your signature. If you leave it blank, they can just sign your name in their handwriting and not have to bother spending hours practicing your unique style…and no one will ever ask for an ID if the back is signed. So I do the double thing…I sign it, AND put, See Photo ID. I actually get asked for my ID quite a bit (though no one ever actually compares the signatures, but they do check that the name on the card matches the name on my ID) but my son uses my card quite a bit with my permission and has never been challenged, mostly because he uses it at the “swipe it yourself” places. Even when their receipt automatically prints out my very feminine first name on the receipt they hand him to sign, no one has questioned him.
If you ever come to Spain, remember to carry a picture, government-issued ID (driver’s license works, if you have it you should carry that and leave the passport in the hotel strongbox) with you at all times. It’s required by law: you can actually be detained until ID is produced.
Hereabouts, the people checking the card is supposed to:
- ask for ID with it,
- check the pic in the ID against your face,
- the name in the card against the name in the ID,
- and the signature in the ticket against the signature in the ID (or card, but if your ID is signed, then it goes against the ID).
I’ve seen a card refused because the person holding it could not produce ID. No ID, no shopping.
The idea is to give you the protection of the government (who issued the ID) as well as that of the credit card company.
So, as it so often happens… legal advice depends on the jurisdiction.
So, your signature is on the card, so what?
Is it easier for a crook to copy a signature onto a reciept or to make a complete fake ID? The card is plastic, the reciept or sig pad is of a different material, mine don’t look anything alike usually, this is the trouble I have with a sig only requirement. I’d rather have the card NOT signed and the clerk always checking a photo ID then have the card signed and not checking an ID.
I think it should be both. Sig and ID for every purchase. A sig alone does nothing without a backup photo ID and a duplicate sig on the reciept.
I think the card swipes should have a touch key on them that says, “Has the Clerk verified this sale with a proper photo ID?” You then press OK and the clerck has to also press the OK button on his/her machine for the order to be processed.
Maybe even take it a step further.
Swipe the drivers license AND the credit card together.
Debit cards with PIN numbers would be exempt.
And would it kill CC companies to place a photo on the credit card? (some used to do this, or still do)
Just to let you know, Ken’s article was mentioned in the N.Y. Times today. (scroll to bottom, registration required, not valid unless signed, IAAVI)
My Vida debit card has my signature printed on the back. Right beside my photo! If it is being processed as a credit card, which it often must be abroad, the clerk flips it to look at my signature and right away sees a mugshot of me staring up at her.
This is common in Norway and I’d imagine at least some other European countries, but it gets comments every time I use it in the States. Mostly “HEY! How can I get a card like that?”
I remember years back there was a TV ad campaign promoting Photo credit cards. I guess people hated the hassle of sending in passport photos, and they always hate how they look in them, too.
But whatever, i’m sure the credit card industry makes way more money than they lose in fraud. It’s their problem, and if they don’t look like they’re doing that much (not asking for photo ID is THEIR policy to make transactions convenient for customers), then we shouldn’t be crying our hearts out for them.
The no-liability policy is a great system, and because of it the CC companies cannot be faulted for being more lenient than appropriate. If they’re lenient, it’s probably appropriate. (Although it distorts incentives for consumers, and probably gets to them reject Photo CCs and etc.)
I can’t believe there is debate on this.
I thought I shared this with the SD community before:
Years ago I worked retail for a board game store, as temporary holiday help. ((Yes, if you think of national board game stores, that existed some time back, thats the one.))
A customer comes in, buys 2 Nintendo 64’s and 2 PS2s. We take his credit card, compare his signature on the receipt, to the signature on the credit card. They match perfectly. We are thinking, wow, Daily sales goal in one transaction…
An hour or so later, we receive word from the cards owner. We were then informed that he did not purchase said items. :dubious:
John Q. Cardholder did not sign the back of his card.
Someone took this card, and took it upon himself to sign the back of the card.
It was fairly obvious what name to sign the back of the card with. An added bounus, this phony signature would match the same signature and hand of any transaction he (the thief) would engage in. Such as a transaction for 4 game consoles.
It took us a moment to fully understand this all, and after that, we suggested that all customers put “See ID” on the back of their card, if it was unsigned. Perhaps against the rules, but, in the momment we felt it was the correct thing to say and do.
Why not just ask them to put their actual signatures there?
They could, but without an ID to match the person to the card it’s meaningless.
The crook could sign the card minutes before using it, or the guy you’re asking to sign the card could be the crook, or he may have practiced perfecting the signature for most of the morning before using the card.
You NEED to have a second form of ID to make sure the transaction is mostly non-fraudulent. Like I said above, a crook could make a passable duplicate signature (on the reciept, or sig pad) whereas a second photo ID is much harder to fake.
If simply (matching) signatures is enough for the CC company then I forsee fraud continuing at a rampant pace.
Ok, let’s stop with the rampant abuse of the concept of “straight dope” and return for a moment to actual facts.
Fact 1: The card is not valid unless signed. If the merchant accepts the card for purpose of a purchase payment and it is not signed, the merchant is liable for the sale if it turns out that the purchase was fradulent. See the agreement the merchant has with the company (e.g.: here (large PDF) (a pamphlet explaining the rules and guidelines).
Fact 2: Those using a stolen card aren’t bothering to sign the cards with fradulent signatures; they use them and dump them ASAP to avoid being caught in possession of a card declined for having been reported stolen. Anyone who is bothering to use a card with a signature that matches their own handwriting probably would go to the trouble of obtaining a fraudulent ID with their picture on it matching the name. That’s not the kind of fraud that the signature is intended to prevent.
Fact 3: While most store clerks can’t be relied upon to enter a 3-digit number into a computer correctly more than 75% of the time, they can relatively easily spot a signature variation, so long as you are relatively careful about how you sign your name. If you sign like I do, a scribble that barely is recognizable as my name (the D, the S and the Y about all you can make out reliably), then, yes, it will be tough to tell I am not the person signing in front of the clerk. But if I write out my name legibly when signing, with just enough personality in my signature to make it distinctive, a thief is not going to successfully countersign the sales slip unless the clerk doesn’t really pay attention.
Fact 4: Clerks almost NEVER pay attention. Can’t tell you the number of times I see a clerk take my card, look at the back, then hand the card back and THEN let me sign the sales slip. Stupid. The chance that a clerk who would othewise allow mis-matched signatures to slip through unnoticed is going to actually ask for your ID because your card says that is relatively small, and not worth the lack of protection your signature offers.
My ex-significant other had a CitiCard Driver’s Edge Mastercard, which had her picture on the front. This always seemed a good idea, until she chopped off half her hair and styled it totally differently, causing a clerk to become suspicious and call a manager to authorize the transaction. I think that the hassle of hair style changes, beards on then off, etc., probably made the idea impracticable.
Which leaves us with the burning question: Why don’t Visa and Mastercard want you to require an added ID with photo for purchases? Simple: First, it causes more hassle for the customer, lengthening the process and forcing them to juggle their wallet or purse to comply, and second, it offers to the clerk an opportunity to obtain VASTLY more vital information about your identity than you want him/her to know. When I worked in retail management for Dillard’s, I was shocked at the number of clerks we would hire who would end up part of some identity theft ring, stealing card numbers, DL #'s, addresses, etc. You keep that DL hidden away if at all possible, and be damn certain they don’t write down anything about your address if you are required to produce it (and even then the good ones memorize it and then simply write it down later).
This came up in a past thread, although I can’t find it, regarding the “Check ID” en lieu of a signature…
As one who does a fair amount of international traveling, I strongly recommend against using “Check ID” on your card. In non-english speaking countries, I have had credit cards refused because the teller/merchant (not being fluent in English) thought that “Check ID” was literally a different signature than my signature on my passport. One hotel in China accused me of having a stolen credit card, which took a high amount of 3-party translator hassle to straighten out. I was extremely lucky to have a back-up credit card in my wallet that hadn’t been signed yet, which I snuck away to sign out of eyesight 
.
Do not assume that American retail customs are translatable to overseas. Someone in backwoods Thailand is going to check that Mysterious Foreign Scribble ‘A’ looks like Mysterious Foreigh Scribble ‘B’.
“Check ID” bad 
First off, I didn’t claim my post was fact filled, they seemed more like strong suggestions to me.
Second, you only seem to have one fact in your post, the first one. The rest are clearly not facts, but possibly anecdotes.
No-one has disagreed that this is true. I will argue that an ID should also be required, that’s all.
Again, not a fact. A crook who steals a blank card should damn well sign it if he wants to have success in using it. That way the sig on the card will match anything he/she signs. The second part of your paragraph doesn’t add up. Why would a crook get a fake ID unless they can at least forge the signature? If the sig on the ID doesn’t match the card or the crooks handwriting then what good is the ID? This is why a good forged sig is the best way to start, if you’re a crook.
Again, not factual, merely an observation. A forged sig or the crooks sig on the card will defeat the average clerk. The clerk has no idea how long it takes you to sign your card. You could be a meticulous writer and (if you’re the crook) take several seconds to sign the card making sure to copy the sig details flawlessly.
The clerk would not know if you always take this long to sign things or if you are forging a signature. Also, how often does someone sign a peice of plastic? It completely throws off the tempo and balance of my signature when I sign the cards. I usually have to sign them slowly and delilberately to make sure it’s somewhat legible. This often times does not resemble the signature on the reciept or the sig pad at the register. About as close as a half-ass forgery would look.
You’re right, they don’t pay attention, that’s why an ID should be requested.
You claim that an ID would be a pain in the ass to dig out of the purse or wallet. Where did the credit card come from? Waived out of thin air?
I think you’re being a little paranoid about the DL thing. If things were my way, then clerks stealing your DL info would be a thing of the past too, since you’d need that actual DL (or suitableID) to make a purchase, not just the information you’ve memorized from someone else’s DL.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be true anymore (if indeed it ever was). After grumbling about having to show my ID at a store tonight, I vowed to make a scene next time… but I wanted to be sure I was right first. So I made a couple phone calls, and both Citibank and Bank of America told me that I was wrong: the merchant agreement doesn’t prohibit requiring a second form of ID.
From Visa’s current guide to their merchant rules:
Thus, they can ask, but you aren’t required to tell… :rolleyes:
Interesting. I’ll print that page and keep it in my wallet.