Why take it personally? Basically if a store doesn't actually have a phsyical imprint of a card or scan it directly through their debit/credit card machine, they aren't covered against fraud. I'm not sure how much having an imprint PROTECTS them, but by at least verifying that the card is in the card-holder's posession at the time the order is made, they reduce faurd considerably (by the very problem you suggest - the stolen card numbers). It's similar to verifying the mailing address of a card...it doesn't necessarily protect the merchant, but reduces the likelihood greatly that it's going to someone other than the cardholder.
The issue's the same here in Canada. We can't verify addresses of card holders in the US without calling our VISA affiliate in the States. It's frustrating, but a cost of doing business. We'll only ship to the billing address of a card that we can verify in Canada and the US. Outside of these two countries, we're taking even more of a gamble. Even then, it would be very difficult for us to receive any compensation if one of the people we shipped to said, "I didn't make that order". Fortunately that hasn't happened...knock on wood. The whole system is frustrating, I agree. But don't blame a merchant for doing what they can to protect themselves. It's not personal, and it's not against the country you are in. And the simple fact of the matter is, it's your choice where you shop. If you've got lots of places you can order from, order there, and skip B&H and whoever else follows any practice you don't agree with. David p.s. I don't work for B&H or related store p.p.s. Sorry if this seems like a rant or I'm butting in, but I was getting a bit tired/frustrated of messages related to this * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
