The credit card companies should pull their heads out of their asses about this.
It is much better from an anti-fraud perspective for a stolen card not to contain a specimen signature for the thief to learn to forge. It is far preferable for the merchant to request ID and verify that the signature matches the ID _AND_ the picture in the ID matches the customer. I've never had my card refused because I wrote SEE ID on the signature panel in lieu of my signature. I have been frequently asked for my ID and make a point of thanking the merchant for their diligence in each of those cases. I've only had one merchant get a little persnickety about the lack of a signature technically invalidating the card. I basically explained why I did it that way and informed them that they could cancel the transaction if they didn't like my methods. They chose not to cancel the transaction. (Which was a rather significant sale in a relatively small shop) Owen Sent from my iPad On Jun 10, 2012, at 3:58 AM, Joe Greco <[email protected]> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Barry Shein" <[email protected]> >> >>> A friend would print in block letters in the sig area of his credit >>> cards "ASK FOR PHOTO ID". He said that almost always cashiers et al >>> would give a cursory glance like they were checking his signature and >>> say thank you and hand him back his card. >> >> This seems like an altogether excellent time to haul out *this* old >> chestnut: >> >> http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/ >> >> FWIW, My cards have always said SEE ID, and I get about a 40% or so hit >> rate on that. It's been odd recently, cause I sometimes forget, and the >> privacy reflex kicks in and makes me want to say "Why??" :-) > > If your card is not signed, your card is invalid and should not be > accepted by any merchant. > > http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MerchantAcceptanceGuide_Manual.pdf > > Page 8-2; "Unsigned Credit Cards". VISA has similar requirements. > > Writing "SEE ID" in the signature panel primarily makes your card invalid > *unless* your signature is also present. > > One of the design goals of the V/MC system is that a cardholder is not > supposed to need anything other than their card and the ability to sign. > The comparison of the signature provided to the card signature is > supposed to be one of the primary ways to validate a cardholder, but of > course these days, most vendors are lazy and don't. > > In fact, one of my favorite abusive merchant practices, trying to require > ID, is expressly prohibited: > > http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/BM-Entire_Manual_public.pdf > > Page 5-14, sec. 5.8.4, "Additional Cardholder Identification". > > They're allowed to ask, you're allowed to refuse, and absent a good > reason, they're not allowed to refuse your transaction. Now, if your > signature doesn't match or something else is particularly fishy, yes, > then they should require it, but they cannot require it by default for > all transactions they process. > > That and a "minimum charge" are among the two most common merchant > violations I see. > > For MasterCard violations, report them! > > http://www.mastercard.us/support/merchant-violations.html > > ... JG > -- > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail > spam(CNN) > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
