var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
RogueSophist
December 26, 2008 5:38 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Bold. Is it possible that Apple and the card companies have operate under a different, special agreement?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
absentmindedjwc
December 26, 2008 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RogueSophist: well, last time I checked... apple doesn't accept cash.

So forcing an ID may not be against their merchant agreement. Since the merchant agreement stipulates that an ID cannot be a condition of purchase to use a credit card, they can argue that it isn't - it is a condition of purchase, period.

If you use check, they ask for an ID, so they can say that this sign is just informing customers that the credit card is not exempted from this policy, and you must show your ID.

Then again, that may just be the apple store by me that doesn't accept cash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kamel5547
December 26, 2008 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: It really doesn't decrease fraud. My photo ID is 11 years old (16), and really doesn't look like me very much at all anymore. I get the cursory can I see your ID and a glance. There is no way the clerks are paying any attention.


Plus getting a fake ID is easier than obtaining fraudulent credit cards (ask any college kid, the best trick is to use out-of-state ID that is hard to verify so that minor flaws aren't noticed). So its another case of non-existant protection. To top it off many cards get used online (including mine a month ago), where there is no ID check at all.


If you actually think the ID check protects you, you should rally give it some more thought.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bucky_katt
December 26, 2008 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kamel5547: Someone stole one of my wife's credit cards, and the card ended up getting flagged (before we called it in) when the thief couldn't produce a matching ID on request. So even though the ID check may not be 100% foolproof (due to store clerk laziness or other reasons), in some cases it does work out as it's supposed to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Carias
December 26, 2008 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kamel5547: \"My photo ID is 11 years old (16), and really doesn't look like me very much at all anymore\"


In Canada, or at least New Brunswick, you are now required to take a new photo photo every time you renew your license. It would help if the US had a similar policy.


Personally I wouldn't mind at all to prove my identity when presenting a credit card. It would actually give me more piece of mind than a merchant just blindly accepting my credit card from some random person off the street. Good on Apple for protecting their revenue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lauy
December 27, 2008 5:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Carias:

Last time I renewed my license was in 1996. It is good until 2035, and I do have to take a new picture at that time. So even requiring a new photo at renewal does not work. BTW, I live in Arizona.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
December 27, 2008 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lauy: LOL. 2035. That's awesome. Does your car registration last 40 years too, or do you have to do that every year like we do? :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xman31
December 27, 2008 6:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lauy: yeah, i was just going to mention that some states like Arizona give long periods until renewal so they don't have to waste so much man power and many dollars on keeping up with motor voter requirements.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
December 26, 2008 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Carias: NJ has that rule. If you want a photo ID, you need to get a new picture every time now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 26, 2008 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kamel5547: Good point. And since homes are burgled despite doors being locked, I'm removing my front door from its hinges today. Thanks!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 26, 2008 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: i WISH that worked. someone still broke a window [many years ago] on my beat up old toyota when the doors were unlocked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xredgambit
December 29, 2008 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl:
Someone did the same, but my doors were locked. But exactly a week later, with no window replacement other than a clear garbage bag over the window, the same thing was tried. Except this time there was a hole in the bag. They ripped a grabage bag, that could've been easier to lift up some, in another failed attempt to steal my radio.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2008 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Yeah, do tell. After replacing my car door window and replacing half the dashboard that some nimrods destroyed (yet left the CD deck in place: geniuses neglected to bring the highly esoteric tool needed to remove it (a Phillips screwdriver)), I wish that car thieves would simply make an appointment, via Sticky Note, inquiring when would be a good time to take my goods with a minimum of collateral damage. Save a lot of money on both sides.
Err, or afford me some good batting practice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dooley
December 26, 2008 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl:

Sometimes a lock is there just to keep honest people... well... honest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 26, 2008 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: kamel has a point. The ID checks will protect you from an ill-prepared or amateur fraud artist, since they didn't have the skill or foresight to produce a fake ID. Just like locking your doors really only protects you from your neighbors, as a professional burglar will still find a way in if he really wants to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2008 12:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: Precisely. The best security is multiple layers of prevention layered on top of each other. Pick items from the buffet that fit your appetite.
Will flashing an ID prevent some weekend opportunist from buying a $3,000 TV on my lost card? Sure.
Will it prevent an ID theft ring that presses counterfeit passports, drivers licenses, credit cards and forces underage Columbian immigrants undergo painful retina-pattern modification surgery with no anesthetic? Don't think so.
But if the former are a sizable minority of CC thefts, that's a good cost/benefit ratio.
Locking up my eyeballs every night in an iron safe? Hmm, Let me get back to you on that. :D

PS: Shouldn't it be \"CD Store Toughguy\"? :P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
December 26, 2008 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: After working retail and seeing many stolen or obviously fake credit cards, I can tell you that a majority of the people trying to commit credit fraud are complete idiots. That is why I prefer stores to ID. We did, and we stopped many possible sour sales, and even had a couple of them arrested. Those are all sales that could have been on a credit card stolen from you,or someone you know, if it wasn't for some simple precautions.

You can't have precautions for the professional, because those precautions are useless. But the majority of people doing something illegal aren't professionals, they just think they are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Avrus
December 30, 2008 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darkest Daze:

Yeah I worked in retail for many years as well. It's hard for me to get upset about a sign like this because my experience was the same as Darkest Daze.

As soon as you ask for secondary ID, it stops almost all credit card fraud in it's tracks. Yes I had a few angry customers here and there, but as a credit card holder I'd prefer them to be as cautious as possible when accepting my credit card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anthony Citrano
December 30, 2008 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Avrus: But why do you prefer this? You are not responsible for fraudulent charges. The potential loss from you is dramatically greater by exposing your personal information to someone you don't know.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Thain
December 26, 2008 8:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: What I've noticed in my own experience is that the actual card thieves only very rarely use the cards (and they tend to be very careful when they do so). Typically, they'll just sell a list of card numbers (or a set of stolen cards) to the highest bidder - those highest bidders aren't NEARLY as smart as the thieves are, so an ID check is often more than enough to stop them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Thain: correct. & there's often another element involved. many times a fence will purchase the cards & then pay someone or a group of people a flat rate or a percentage of the take to use the cards.

so now, even if you catch the user, you're still 2 or 3 (or more) levels away from the actual source of the fraud.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
December 26, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I don't lock my doors, that way I don't come home to a broken down door in the middle of winter!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kityglitr
December 26, 2008 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: I'll do you one better. I've got the perfect anti-theft device that works at home or in your car, barring you live in a hot climate (I don't). A Rottweiler.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mgy
December 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RogueSophist: This is completely possible. When I discovered that my University was charging 2.75% convenience fees on top of tuition payments for credit cards, I called up the Cashier's office and they sent me over a special document from Discover outlining their ability to do so without violating the traditional \"merchant\" agreement. Then I sent it to Consumerist. Obviously, that was only for government-funded educational institutions, but it does go to show that the merchant agreement isn't the be-all, end-all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 26, 2008 11:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mgy:


Thank you.


In fact the published merchant agreement is NOT the agreement which the merchant will sign but rather the general starting point for all other merchant agreements.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
December 26, 2008 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, they can post signs saying \"All customers must be painted green\", but so long as they don't actually enforce the infringing policies at the register, it isn't a violation. I imagine that the informed reader might come armed with a copy of the agreement or of the applicable statute (if the jurisdiction forbids requiring this)...


but then again, who gives a flying... obviously not Apple, anyway... I'll give my money to someone who doesn't think hassling paying customers is good business.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
drdom
December 26, 2008 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@speedwell:
In recent research done by the University of Wisconsin, it was determined that slightly less than 36% of merchants were able to accurately make a decision about the validity of a cardholders signature.

Do you really expect the 17 year old kid working the register at (pick your store) to be a handwriting expert? Merchants are just trying to make a reasonable effort to protect their financial interest, and in the process, it also protects the customer. What's the downside?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: do you expect the 17 year old kid to be an ID expert? i'd like to see some research on how many merchants were able to accurately make a decision about the validity of an ID.

little known fact about signatures & credit cards: did you know that the signatures don't even need to match for it to be a \"valid transaction\" under the payment acceptance guidelines? as long as there is A signature on the slip & A signature on the card, the signature portion of the acceptance guidelines is satisfied.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
December 26, 2008 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: I expect the corporate office to arrange to train its employees. Too much to expect, I know.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
December 26, 2008 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Graphology is the study of handwriting; It's the proper name for the area of study of the sort of handwriting expert you see testifying as an expert witness in court.

Graphology is a 2-year college degree, if I remember correctly. That's the level of education you need to have to reliably and accurately determine whether a signature is valid. Most retail stores can't afford to train their clerks, or even managers to that level. So they either leave them untrained, or give them a week's training, or have them read a pamphlet, etc.

How reliable is the opinion of an untrained person? How competent can someone be if their training amounts to a week of classes instead of two years of classes? I know I wouldn't trust a paramedic whose education amounted to reading a pamphlet or taking a 1-week training course...and that's about the level of education and skill we're talking about here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 26, 2008 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: The funny thing is that my old manager told me, after getting in trouble for refusing too many transactions because the signatures didn't match, that it doesn't matter what the customer signs on the slip - the agreement is that the customer signs the card, and we make sure the card is signed. It would not surprise me in the slightest if this were true.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only way they can legally ask for a photo ID is if the back of your card is not signed...or if you have written \"See Photo ID\" on the back...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tgrwillki
December 27, 2008 12:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ThaliaRagnarok: Actually, the card holder agreements say you aren't supposed to write \"See photo ID\" on your card.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
drdom
December 26, 2008 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I still don't get it. Apple, like many merchants, are trying to cut losses from fraudulent use of credit cards. They are in effect protecting the customer while protecting themselves.

I have no problem showing my drivers license to help prevent unauthorized use of my credit card. There is no evil intent on Apple's part. Why is this such a hot button for some folks? It's a minor inconvenience at worst.

Why have so many people appointed themself to the role of merchant agreement monitor? If you don't like their policies, don't shop there. Problem solved.

Reply
25 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anthony Citrano
December 30, 2008 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Because most identity theft is a result of someone getting their hands on the information on your license. What protection is conferred to you through this policy, exactly?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parnote
December 27, 2008 12:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Sheeple alert! Sheeple alert! Please, feel free to surrender YOUR rights ... but leave mine alone!

The merchant agreement is there to protect ALL consumers, and as such, should be applied equally. After all, where else are you going to go to purchase Apple products?? Best Buy?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rworne
December 26, 2008 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom:

Absolutely. I am a big privacy freak, but I don't object to the clerk taking a cursory glance at ID. In fact I always produce it automatically without them asking.

As long as the store isn't writing down any info and just looking at the name and picture, there's no problem for me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
l3lueSunScar
December 26, 2008 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: @drdom: I agree is it really that big of a hassel to flash your ID for a second to try and help prevent fraud?


To everyone saying \"Oh they broke their contract.. blah blah blah..\" You have apprently never had your id/wallet stolen or know anyone that has. It is a huge hassel to deal with and I for one am extremely happy when people take the time to ask to see an ID. Does it help stop fraud? I don't know for sure, but I bet it works better then not doing anything.


@ mac-phisto
\"if merchants are serious about reducing fraud, they should train associates to spot suspicious transactions & issue a \"code 10\" if they suspect fraud.\"


And what suspicious transations would a sells clerk notice? A lady I work with had her wallet stolen recently. The person bought food, clothing, and some other random items from different stores. They ended up running up like a grand in charges, but at different stores and at around $200 or $300 a pop. Now tell me how that is any different than you or me going out and doing our shopping on our card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 27, 2008 4:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@l3lueSunScar: in your example, a woman had her wallet stolen. wouldn't the thief have both the cc & the ID in this circumstance? how does this policy prevent the fraud?

it doesn't. you can't prevent all fraud. all you can do is weed out the suspicious transactions. i used to work at an electronics retailer & in one instance, a guy came in, pointed at the most expensive gps unit & said \"i'll take 2\". then he pointed at a $350 sony digital camera & said he wanted one of those also. & an ipod. $2300 sale in 5 minutes. i code 10'd that one. i don't know if it was fraudulent or not, but my gut said it was.

then i had an instance of \"probing\" once. the person was using incrementally increasing charges to see how far he could go. by the 3rd swipe i could tell what he was up to & i fake declined the transaction - told him the card wasn't working. he knew the gig was up & walked out. i called the call center after he left & made a statement in case they wanted to freeze the card. sure, he got away with some stuff, but i was able to mitigate the theft.

in another instance, a person was trying to buy like $1000 in prepaid visa cards, each for $100 \"but i need separate receipts for each one\". yeah, right. try, \"i don't know how many i'm gonna get away with buying, so we'll do it one at a time\".

that's a few examples of what to look for. i knew what to spot b/c i was trained well by my manager (& b/c for some strange reason, this shit fascinates me). you stop what you can, you don't worry about what you can't. let the network take care of the rest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2008 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: [misc examples of your being a phenomenal retail person vis catching CC fraudsters]
You are sun-kissed by the gods, sir. Were that all retail people as conscientious as you.
I see it as multiple layers of protection. Flashing ID catches some of the fraud. Hoping it's you on the other side of the counter stops other types of thieves. The CC company's fraud algorithms are another. So are laws making consumers responsible for the first $50 and companies wanting to retain customers.
None of them are perfect, some catch different segments of thieves, all work together. Like many complex problems, the best solutions are sometimes incremental.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
December 26, 2008 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@l3lueSunScar: The flaw with that way of thinking is that the merchant doesn't do anything like say calling the cops if the ID does NOT match. So obviously it is stricly to cover their asses. They don't have the balls to call someone a thief for having someone else's card and call the police on them. They don't even attempt to contact the persons name on the card through the visa/mastercard etc to let them know their card may be stolen.


So how does it prevent card theft when the theif gets to walk away with the card to attempt to spend it somewhere eles.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
clickable
December 29, 2008 1:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: Yes they do. I just wrote a post below describing exactly that. As it happens, my stolen card (which I didn't know had been stolen) was used at an Apple store. When the card name and photo ID (a woman's name and a photo of a female) did not fit the person trying to make the purchase, the Apple store immediately called the card issuer and the cops. (a) the card issuer called me about \"suspicious activity,\" and of course I immediately checked and realized my wallet had indeed gone missing since the night before (car in driveway broken into, handbag taken); (b) the guy was arrested on the spot. He never got the chance to use the card even once (thus not contributing to the cost of fraud), and I eventually got the rest of the stuff in my wallet back, plus of course a new card.


All this happened because the store asked for a photo ID. The theorists here think all thieves are sophisticated identity thieves who laugh in the face of the retailers' silly attempts to thwart them, but I'm pretty sure plenty of thieves are as dumb as the one who stole my wallet, who, when asked to show a photo ID along with the charge card, pulled out mine, showing a face of a different gender and race than his. Even the most unmotivated rookie cashier would have caught that one.


That, snoop-blog, is how it prevents theft. It is not the only line of defense, but it is a first line of defense that catches the dumb ones, of which there are plenty.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
clickable
December 29, 2008 2:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@clickable: Actually, I'm not sure if they called the cops, I just know that what was left of the wallet - drivers' license and library card - was turned in to the cops and made its way back to me. But the cc company was notified because the ID was so very different from the customer standing at the counter that even the \"14-yr old\" cashier realized something was very wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JackWalker
December 27, 2008 4:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: The flaw in your statement is that retailers can't just shout \"Thief!\" Why do you think they tell you, in any retail environment, or anywhere that deals with cash, that if someone shoplifts or steals, you cannot come out and accuse them or even try to stop them at the door. It presents a major safety issue as well as a possible lawsuit. A retailer can find itself in some majorly hot water should they wrongly accuse someone of theft or even ID theft.


Also, how does a retailer contact \"Mr. Francisco Soares\" when there are COUNTLESS people by that name in the country?


Do you see where the flawed logic is now? I work in retail and I follow the merchant agreement, but I have customers that hand both their credit card as well as their IDs to me. Some people are relieved when we ask... hell, they even thank us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Voyou_Charmant
December 27, 2008 12:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog:

\"They don't have the balls.\" Please.

Plenty of stores will contact law enforcement if they believe someone is using a stolen card, counterfeit bills, writing bad checks, etc... The policy varies from company to company.

With regards to contacting the cardholder... No. They are not the CC company. That's the CC companie, or law enforcements job. Not the stores.

If the person leaves with the card and the clerk believes it to be stolen, they can easily call the CC company and have it flagged.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
December 26, 2008 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: What makes me mad about the whole thing is it is MY credit card. If I want to lend it out to someone for whatever reason that is MY business. If it gets stolen, I'll report it stolen. Until then consider my card to be legit at all times. The funny thing is my local pizza place now forces me to show ID (despite them actually knowing me by name they say it's their new \"policy\") However, anyone I want to lend my card to could order from the same pizza place online, and never have to prove shit.


If I wrote my name on all the dollar bills I had would you card the person trying to spend them?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 27, 2008 7:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: I work at a grocery store, and we get quite a few stolen credit cards coming through. You can complain about them doing so, and how *you* don't get held liable for the charges, but what ends up happening is that they cut back on hours for employees, or raise prices to make up for money lost due to what amounts to theft.

If you don't like it, shop somewhere else. Seriously. We are, by law where I work, allowed to ask for ID if the signature is not visible on the card, if it is widely different from the card, or if there is a mismatch between the users apparent sex and the name on the card. I - personally - have caught 3 people using stolen credit cards by doing just that. If I didn't check, the store loses money, and eventually, I might lose my job because of that lost revenue. If it bothers you so much, find another pizza place, or pay with cash.

Everybody is so used to their little conveniences that they get all up in arms when they're suddenly forced to do something a little differently; oh no, it's the end of the world because I had to show ID with my credit card... next the pizza gestapo are going to kick down my door and take a retina scan and colon-imprint to verify my identity before they'll give me my large with anchovies. Hell, if we weren't allowed to check credit cards at all, we'd likely stop accepting them, and stick with debits, as most everyone has one of them by now anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dooley
December 26, 2008 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog:
>If I wrote my name on all the dollar bills I had would you card the person trying to spend them?<

Only if your name was WheresGeorge.com

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 26, 2008 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: actually, after many years working in cash/credit card handling for a company that DOES train its employees on credit card fraud [disney] it's a part of the contract that it's not 'your' card - it belongs to the issuer. on the back of the card it probably says that or that it's 'subject to the terms of the license agreement' which would then say that you have to surrender it to the issuer or on authorization from the issuer, to the merchant, on demand.
i had to cut up a mastercard and a few american express cards over the years. one lady was trying to use her husband's amex card and she wanted me to call amex for authorization. having been trained on their rules, i suggested it was a bad idea but she insisted. so i called. then i put amex on speakerphone and asked them to repeat to the lady what they said to me: \"please retain the card, cut it up, and mail it to the address on the back of the card.\"
when the lady had a fit and told them she would just take the card back, the amex rep said 'it's not your card, your name isn't on the card and the account is now frozen until we can contact the account owner'

i'm guessing that got uglier later, but it's part of the merchant agreement, just as it is part of the agreement between the cardholder and the issuer, down there in the fine print

Reply
\"user-pic\"
discounteggroll
December 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl:

did you remember to get the address to mail the AMEX before you cut it up?

just checkin'

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 26, 2008 10:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@discounteggroll: hehe, actually you lock it in the drawer and cut it up with the supervision of a manager later. and since amex pays $50 to the cashier for that - yes, you never forget to get the mailing address.
that's right, wait for it... someone's gonna give me crap saying i was trying to find reasons to confiscate the card because i got paid for it. no, i didn't do stuff like that, but i am sure some cashiers did. in this case, the lady had no proof that it was her husband's card and she had the chance to walk away.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
allnitecp
December 30, 2008 1:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: I know this is probably way too long after the original post, but I have to put my $.02 in here.

I HIGHLY doubt this is the case for all merchants. Actually do you know the reason that most merchants don't accept AMEX? That's because that with AMEX, the card holder is valued much higher than the Merchant. As a matter of fact, most merchants have to pay a premium to accept AMEX cards, because the AMEX Card Holder is usually more trustworthy consumer who pays off the balance monthly in order to keep the charging privileges. Thats why most of the Mom and Pop shops only take Visa/MC.

How do I know this? I worked for AMEX Merchant Processing Services for almost 3 years.

The last thing AMEX wants to do is piss off a Card Holder, at least that was the policy years ago. I am assuming the only reason AMEX told you to hold the card was the fact that there was a fraud notice on it anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
December 26, 2008 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: I've had to cut up cards before. Usually I didn't get a reason, like the name was wrong, just the register saying to call the company and then they told me to cut it up and send it in. It could have been fraud or anything else. I am all for protecting the consumer, but some of the people on here obviously never worked retail like we have and don't realize how often it's the consumer that is trying to pull one over on the store, not the other way around.

It's also funny how they are yelling how that it's wrong to go against the credit card's agreement, but as soon as you tell a story where the customer didn't follow that agreement and lost out, then it's your fault for following the same contract they just said needs to be followed by every retailer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
December 26, 2008 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: So you basically screwed over a totally innocent customer, way to go! Hey, you can always tell yourself that you followed the rules if it helps you feel better.


It's no wonder sites like this were created. This site is dedicated to helping a consumer who is being treated like crap by companies. Kinda like the policy that made you feel like you did the right thing with that lady. Those policies are crap because of the situation you just described. If you feel like it's okay for merchants to treat customers in this way, what on earth are you doing on THIS site.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
December 27, 2008 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog:

What are you talking about? Catastrophegirl tried to encourage the customer to just leave with the card, but the customer insisted on having her call Amex.

The customer got exactly what they asked for, it just wasn't what they wanted.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mzlinax3
December 27, 2008 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: She isn't totally innocent. In actuality, she is not innocent at all. What the actual account holder should be doing is calling AMEX to have her added to the account so that she can have a new card issued with her name on it. Since the woman is using her husbands credit card as her own she is, in essence, committing fraud. Furthermore, how do you even know that the woman is innocent? She could have stolen the card out of her husband's wallet. It could be her ex-husband or she could be going through a divorce. As someone who works in a bank, I see join account holders everyday carrying their spouses debit cards around trying to access the account. If this is the case, I will refuse the card and the transaction RIGHTFULLY because the coowners of the account should have their own seperate cards and pin numbers. We as people who work in retail, have an obligation to protect the account holder.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JackWalker
December 27, 2008 4:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: She followed a simple directive laid out by her employer, and that makes her a bad person?


How did she screw over an innocent customer? Despite the card belonging to her husband, it's still not the customer's card. Until YOU have been in a similar position, I think it would be best for you to question why YOU are on this site.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 26, 2008 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: actually, i told her what was probably going to happen and gave her the chance to walk away with the card or use another card with her name on it. she refused and insisted i call amex. also, i didn't get fired, which i would have, had i taken the card. i needed my job more than she needed to be a bitch to me. disney has security cameras on the employees as well as the customers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
December 26, 2008 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: It makes me uneasy when companies make up their own rules without regards to their contracts or, at times, the law. I don't agree that my only recourse in those situations is to avoid the company or to comply with them when it's a pretty simple matter to encourage them to abide by the rules they agreed to.

I certainly don't support the implication that I have to abide by the company's rules but they don't have to abide by other rules.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
December 26, 2008 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom:
You are right Apple is doing this to cut their losses. This doesn't help you one bit.

In no way will presenting and ID at the time of purchase help protect you unless you have so many credit cards that you didn't notice a stolen one for a billing cycle.

If your credit card is stolen you don't have to pay for the fradulent charges. Apple does. If they come up and say well id was presented the onus is now on you to prove it wasn't you.

Besides if the card was 'stolen' you should have reported it and it would be inactive in minutes.

If your identity was stolen a fake id can also be made from that stolen information.

Besides making you feel good, how does this in any way help you be more secure?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dooley
December 26, 2008 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Techguy1138:
>If your credit card is stolen you don't have to pay for the fradulent charges. Apple does. If they come up and say well id was presented the onus is now on you to prove it wasn't you.>

Nope, the onus is on the store to provide a copy of your SIGNATURE, which is what they're supposed to check. If the signature matches the one the credit card has on file, then they have proof that the consumer did, in fact,make the purchase.

However, if it is a forged signature, that proves you did NOT make the purchase.

Having a verifiable signature is proof.

The store saying \"Yeah, we checked his ID\" is NOT proof.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Voyou_Charmant
December 27, 2008 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: No. Apple may get charged a fee for a charge back (typically $35.00), but they are not responsible for fraudulent transactions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
December 26, 2008 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: If someone knows the number on the front of the card, they could in theory make fraudulent purchases with it. Add the 3 or 4 digit number on the back and it gets easier. If they know your driver's license number, it gets easier still.

And there's contract angle too...if they are unwilling to honor the contracts they sign with the credit card companies...why should I expect them to honor one they sign with me? Or why should they expect me to honor theirs?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 6:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: b/c there's no indication that this does anything to protect against fraud.

consumers are already protected under federal law (FCBA) & various merchant agreements (such as visa's \"zero liability\" policy). it is not the merchant's responsibility to enact new policies of questionable worth to \"protect the consumer\". it is their responsibility to process & accept payment if it meets the criteria in their agreement.

if merchants are serious about reducing fraud, they should train associates to spot suspicious transactions & issue a \"code 10\" if they suspect fraud.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nicemarmot617
December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Yeah I might generally be inclined to agree with the NO ID loonies, but I worked in retail for years and ran into so many stolen credit cards it was almost funny. I sign the back of my cards and I am very pleased when I get asked for ID.

Now several years after leaving the retail nightmare I have had my cc numbers stolen - wouldn't have been an issue if the retailers had asked for ID. If you don't like the store's policy - take your business elsewhere, and stop whining about contracts like a little bitch.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tankertodd
December 26, 2008 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Well said. There are many many many more anti-consumer policies than this one. If Apple is violating their merchant agreement I don't know why I should care either. This isn't a B2B consumer website is it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TecmoTech
December 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom:

Yeah what is the deal here? I wrote \"CHECK ID\" on the back of my credit card so they DO check my ID. I don't get why this is a bad message.

Is there some law being violated by this sign?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ckaught78
December 26, 2008 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TecmoTech:


You just invalidated your card and if a merchant doesn't want to accept it they don't have to. For instance, USPS will not accept a card with anything but a valid signature. And plus, you make it easier for a criminal to forge your signature because they could have a fake ID with your name and a signature in their own hand writing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 9:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TecmoTech:

Credit Cards aren't actually valid to use unless there is a signature written on the back of the card....

Retailers don't have to accept a card that has \"See ID\" and \"CID\" written on the back....I even have \"CID\" written on my debit card, but I just learned this information after started working at a bank...just a little fyi

Reply
\"user-pic\"
APFPilot
December 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: The only defenses at some gas stations ( a common usage for stolen cards/cloned cards) is a zip code. An easy way for them to get the zip code that matches the card is to look at a DL. Not to mention the skeevy feeling of having to show papers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


After seeing so any people get away with using stolen credit cards at the store where I worked (thanks to the merchant agreement everyone is so hot and bothered about), I also wonder what the big fat hairy deal is with flashing some ID.


Honestly - if you're worried that the 14-year-old kid behind the counter is going to take a high-resolution scan of your ID and credit card with their mind, or you're so sexy that the kid is going to memorize your address and stalk you, I'm not sure if privacy is your only problem. Is there something I'm missing here?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unobservant: this is what you're missing:
* a \"white card\" can have any name imprinted on it & still transmit the correct name.
* these people are cloning credit cards - do you think it's impossible for them to create fake IDs?
* a clerk at the apple store is not trained to know the difference between my fake \"john smith\" canadian passport that matches my fake \"john smith\" visa card (which actually transmits the name of \"glenda saludavichkovski\" who lives in east bumblef*ck, nj)

the whole point of the authorization system is to standardize the payment process & make it easier for merchants to accept trustworthy payment. if it's too much for them, they shouldn't be accepting it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qwerty017
December 26, 2008 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: They don't take a loss even if the card was fraudulent as long as the card was signed and they follow the merchant agreement. Also, its the principle of the thing. When I get a credit card I agree to the stipulations in the credit card contract such as making payments so why should retailers be allowed to violate their side of the contract?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
octajohnny
December 29, 2008 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@qwerty017: this is untrue. The credit card processing agencies would like you to think this, but being a merchant myself, it's simply not true.

ANY sort of discrepancy where the card holder files a dispute - whether or not it's signed - the money immediately comes out of the merchant's account until they prove the sale is legit, which can be hard (except in the case of online sales that are delivered to ONLY the cardholder's exact billing address).

The only people this benefits is the processing agent themselves. It does not protect the stores, it does not protect the cardholder... but either way, the processing agent doesn't lose their 2-3% cut of the sale.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Alkon
December 26, 2008 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A question: who should pick up the cost when somebody with a stolen credit card buys an Apple computer? Is it the card company that currently pays the price?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
December 28, 2008 8:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Alkon: Amy it SHOULD be the CC company. They charge a fee for every transaction from the merchant. They also get a cut from the interest on the consumer side.

If the CC company gets burned to often they should change the terms of the card to account for the losses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drdom
December 26, 2008 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Alkon:
That's the catch 22. In some cases, the CC company will charge it off against the merchant if they cannot prove they made a \"reasonable effort to ensure the identity of the card holder\". I have seen cases where they want the merchant to pull the surveillance video to prove that the individual who accepted the card made some sort of check. Again, depending on the individual, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect every retail clerk to be a handwriting expert for checking signatures.

Vendors of higher ticket items such as computers, TV's, electronics etc. tend to get the short end of that stick, although the CC company or bank does absorb the loss in more cases. But not all.

It depends on the specifics of the contract negotiated between larger merchants and either their credit card processing company or their bank. And that agreement can vary from vendor to vendor if you are a large ticket merchant.

Most electronic processing systems validate the status of the card when it is swiped at the point of purchase. But that doesn't account for cards not yet reported lost or stolen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: this is exactly why merchants shouldn't be requiring ID. if merchants start requiring more info at POS, the operating rules will change & a new standard will be formed.

the less merchants have to do, the better off they are. trust me on this. i'm on the other side (card issuer) & i'm neck deep in new regs for credit/debit cards this year. it sucks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qwerty017
December 26, 2008 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Alkon: It is the credit card company since they set the rules for the people to follow. As long as those rules are followed they pick up the price. If the merchant doesn't though, then the merchant gets hit, like if the card wasn't signed when used.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@qwerty017: correct (almost). visa sets the rules & visa never pays. the credit card company (card issuer) does take the hit. the merchant pays protection money (interchange fees) to compensate for the card issuer's loss. the idea is that the aggregate interchange payments should offset any specific losses due to fraud.

what gets me is that visa sets the rules, creates a payment system that's obviously compromised on various levels, skims money off both the merchant & the issuer & they NEVER get stuck holding the bag. bastards.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 26, 2008 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I. Don't. Care. (what the agreement says)

So long as the merchant isn't writing down the driver's license info (they're not), then flashing an ID reduces the odds of \"hot\" cards being used. Not eliminates, but reduces.
This is a social good. It's pro-consumer (unless your idea of a great time is spending a half-day sorting out a half-dozen fraudulent charges).
I always thank clerks for asking me to flash my ID when using my card. Credit card companies need to change their policy to allow merchants the option of showing (again, NOT recording) an ID for larger purchases.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
godlyfrog
December 26, 2008 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: The problem is, ID or not, your credit card number is already stolen at that point. You will eventually be spending a half-day sorting out charges, just not necessarily charges from that store. A smart thief will just refuse to show ID, act indignant, and walk out.

Apple is doing this solely to protect themselves, because by the time the ID check is \"protecting\" you, it's already too late for you to prevent your card number from being stolen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
December 26, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Coundn't agree more. Furthermore, Apple may will end up eating the cost of a transaction with a stolen credit card (after all, the CC company does the investigation to determine if policies were followed).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: visa does the investigation, not the cc company.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 26, 2008 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Oh, and credit cards value generating large balances on their cards - or at least transactional fees - over security. That's the only reason they don't adopt this common-sense practice.
Their fees trump your inconvenience and safety. How nice of them...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thrid001
December 26, 2008 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have in no way been wronged if Apple refuses to accept the card. That is an agreement between Apple and Visa or Mastercard. Of course, if they are in violation, Mastercard could deny them using their products in the future, BUT remember how Mastercard gets paid.
I never sign any of my cards, and it clearly states see ID on my card. I have lived through having my card stolen and it discourages use of the card by the criminal.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
December 27, 2008 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thrid001:

Years ago I had a co-worker that made many times his actual salary off customer's like you.

The customer would present his \"see id\" card. My co-worker would call in a code 10 authorization and explain the card had \"see id\" written on the back and was not signed. The authorization company would instruct him to seize the card and give the phone to the customer so they could explain what was going on. If the customer complained enough management would give him the card back, but it didn't matter, the authorization company already flagged it as an invalid card. It was useless.

Oh, and he got $50-$100 for each card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thrid001
December 29, 2008 3:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cheviot: In 25 years of carrying credit cards I have never had a card confiscated for that reason. If MC or Visa that, I would just call me BANK, and have it reissued. It is not an invalid card. Merchants are bound by a lot of things, such as not requiring a minimum purchase, but in the real world the merchant is the one who will lose in that. if your friend was really doing that. I can promise you his employer would end that IMMEDIATELY. Remember, if the merchants employee does that, and backs his employee doing it, I can go elsewhere to spend my money. Not that bog of an issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
April 11, 2009 4:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thrid001:

He wasn't a friend, he was a co-worker. Local management tried to put a stop to it. Threatened him with firing.

Human resources shot them right down. They eventually found something else to fire him for, but not before he made thousands in canceled card fees.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thrid001: Unfortunately, you are violating your card agreement by not sighning your card, and the merchant is bound by said agreement to not accept your card.


I'm not saying this is right - in fact, I think it's COMPLETELY r-tarded.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even with the card agreement, if someone does not want to show their ID, they are NOT under obligation to sell anything. People do not need to show ID, but if they do not Apple does not need to sell them a product.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
yikz
December 27, 2008 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RosettaPurpureo: You need to read the agreement. The merchant shall not refuse sale if the cardholder has met the requirements. Signed card, and the signature on the bill of sale matches the card. If the merchant makes further stipulations, they can lose their merchant status. They can't refuse the sale. It is the buyers' right that is contained in the merchant agreement. The merchant gave up their right to ask for ID when they agreed to use a Visa/Mastercard procedure.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ChrisC1234
December 26, 2008 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just show the #$#@ ID (or receipt, or whatever other stupid thing people throw a fit about). Cutting down on shrinkage / theft DOES benefit everyone. Personally, I am glad whenever a store is making sure that I am the one using my credit card, because it is ultimately protecting ME.

If you don't agree, why don't you just leave your credit card sitting on a table at your local mall. Then see how much FUN it is to clean up the mess.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
December 26, 2008 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChrisC1234: If I did happen to leave my credit card sitting on a table in the mall, I would do what you're supposed to do and call my credit card company as soon as I noticed it was gone. Cost to me? $50, max, and the card gets shut off immediately, causing no further potential losses. To me, protection of my contractual rights and civil liberties is worth $50 and 5 minutes worth of cell phone time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
simplegreen
December 27, 2008 3:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kmw2: couldn't have said it better. Too many people just dont care enough.. but when the rights are gone, they'll be the first to complain.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
simplegreen
December 26, 2008 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChrisC1234: this frame of mind is the exact reason we have the larger issue in America with out dwindling Constitutional rights (gun control, patriot act, freedom of speech violations). Yes it is must easier to just show the damn ID, but on the simpler side, its against the agreements, they simply shouldn't make you show ID.

Secondly, and more scary, its is this attitude that lets corporations and government get away with a ton of \"little things\" because they make it such an inconvenience if you don't comply. I prefer to protest with my dollars, any store that makes me show ID when i dont specify they should, i take my business elsewhere.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
December 26, 2008 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@simplegreen: I'd rather show an ID than make it easier for someone to trash my account, credit history and possibly my life, but that's just me. One is so much more of a risk to my personal freedom than the other.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshReflek
December 26, 2008 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@simplegreen: this country needs to understand the concepts in your post. too bad there are so many 'sheeple'

Reply
\"user-pic\"
danep
December 26, 2008 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: By showing your ID to someone who doesn't need to see it, aren't you actually increasing the risk of having your identity stolen? Before the cashier may have just had your credit card number, now they also have your date of birth and address at the very least.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
December 26, 2008 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Alex, this is nonsense. The civil code section that Meg quoted in the linked post explicitly ALLOWS vendors to require IDs for credit card purchases. If there is any 'violation' (actually breach) of the merchant agreement, the cardholder is not a party to that agreement and has no standing to enforce it. At best, you can report the case to Visa, but they are also free to ignore you. I would also point out that in this credit market, you probably don't want to make too many waves with your bank - tehy are cutting off 'unprofitable' credit customers.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anthony Citrano
December 30, 2008 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Visa actually takes this very seriously and the major CC companies see rogue merchant ID policies as a security risk, not a valid security precaution.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Those merchant agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on. Locally Kent State U. and the U. of Akron are now charging extra to cover the card fees if you pay for your classes and tuition with a card.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
December 27, 2008 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SuranjanaBuffalo: And those aren't in breach of the merchant agreement, since such fees by schools and state agencies are explicitly exempted.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ballookey
December 26, 2008 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know for a fact that in the past several months, the Apple stores have been getting hit hard by people using stolen credit cards to buy laptops that are fenced on the street. It was described to me as \"kids in a candy store\".

So I don't know what the moral outrage is here. Are you actually implying that Apple should stop accepting credit cards for purchases? Who's supposed to eat the cost of the dozens of laptops purchased illegally every week from a targeted store? Is the outrage only because technically what Apple's doing is against the merchant agreement? Because this seems like a sensible step to prevent fraud and so maybe the merchant agreement needs to change.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2008 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ballookey: No, it seems like some want crime to pay, so long as it's Apple that foots the bill. Ironically, you have many Conservatives suggesting that we accommodate criminals over having the hapless victim use a common-sense solution that stops the dumb criminals from walking off with the store...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 27, 2008 5:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: is everything always so black & white in your world? Conservatives suggesting that we accommodate criminals... what the hell is that? jibber jabber.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Err, when people that have commented on other threads with a Conservative voice, then turn around in this one saying, \"Let Them Swallow Infinite Losses, Yippee, criminals RULEZ!\", it's ironic.
Not so ironic if Snoop or I do the same thing, criminal-hugging, rapist-sympathizing, ACLU card-carrying miscreants that we are. (Although he's taking the opposite side on this one, but still...)
No irony = no chuckles. That's all. :)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
qwerty017
December 26, 2008 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't understand you people that think this is ok. The merchant doesn't get hit if someone steals your card and uses it as long as it was signed (SEE ID doesn't count) and they followed the other procedures specified in their merchant agreement. The fact that it's not a big problem means nothing. When you get a credit card you sign a contract. If you violated that contract you would be held responsible by the Credit card company. I find no problem with making the businesses that signed the other half of the contract responsible for upholding their side of the contract. Whenever I find a merchant that charges a fee or requires ID or any of the number of things that merchants get away with I contact the credit card companies to make sure that they follow the same rules that I do.

Also, about not showing an ID not being a big thing. You don't need an ID of any kind to get a credit card so requiring one to make a purchase doesn't make much sense.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
BeowulfRex
December 26, 2008 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@qwerty017: I don't understand you people that think this is ok.

I think it is okay because it's an attempt to reduce fraud and theft. That used to be a good thing, both moral and ethical. Maybe I missed a memo.

I like good customer service, and that's what this is an example of. Credit card policies that encourage fraud are not good customer service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
December 26, 2008 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BeowulfRex: Wal-mart security guards tackling a guy in the parking lot and sitting on him until he dies on boiling hot pavement for the crime of stealing a pack of diapers is also an attempt to reduce fraud and theft, but is neither moral nor ethical. Neither is breaking a contract in an attempt to do same. If Apple or other large retail stores have a problem with the merchant agreement, they should negotiate for changes to it, not simply break it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xthexlanternx
December 26, 2008 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BeowulfRex:

The person making $8 an hour to ring up your purchase getting a look at your name, date of birth, address, and maybe social security number (depending on state) is a credit card policy that encourages fraud. I have a photographic memory and if I were so inclined, I could steal tons of information this way, even on such a quick glance.

Most people don't leave their wallets lying around for people to steal, but most people do suck at using computers and keeping them clean. Personally, I have never lost my wallet and I know the ins and outs of not compromising my information online. For people like me, an action like this only increases the chance of fraud on me. If people think that employee-based ID theft doesn't happen, look a little harder at the news or just wait because it WILL become more commonplace. Why try to pickpocket or try to gather information online (which may not be reliable info anyways) when you can get a job at the counter at Wal Mart and get hundreds of people's information a day?

It isn't a huge deal, but barring me getting mugged or something, I really see this as the best chance for any consumer to become a victim of fraud.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mannymix03
December 27, 2008 8:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx:

You're 100% right, but you really think the person making $8 an hour to ring up the purchase has the time in a busy store to write down all this before they forget?

Seriously please stop treating all us retail workers like criminals, We check I.D. on large purchases to keep you safe, I have personally seen 2 separate incidents where someone was using a \"hot\" card to buy various items, we called the police and they were arrested.

I know that personal rights are important but if we weren't allowed to check I.D. then these people would have gotten away, it's a simple inconvenience but it keeps you safer. Besides I really don't care where you live or when you were born, I'm just looking at the name and picture that takes about 2 seconds.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
December 26, 2008 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Personally, I don't see a problem with this. What's wrong with Apple demanding that they positively I.D. a customer who is using a credit card? I prefer being asked for my I.D. The last thing that I want to have happen is for my cards to get stolen and then have a merchant allow purchases without asking for an I.D. Why is everyone getting so damned mad about this? I don't get it. Apple should not have to bear the burden of having chargebacks happen when someone makes a purchase with a stolen or unauthorized credit card. What I'm outraged about is that Mastercard and other card issuers would not want an I.D. to be shown. It defies logic.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

RE: thrid001\"I never sign any of my cards, and it clearly states see ID on my card. I have lived through having my card stolen and it discourages use of the card by the criminal.\"

Doesn't this make it easier for the criminal? He/She can sign their own version of your name on the back and then it will compare at the time of purchase. Since the \"See ID\" note can't be enforced, seems like you're protecting yourself less.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
robdew2
December 26, 2008 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

that last Clearinghouse link is screwy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ChuckECheese
December 26, 2008 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just to get y'all worked up even more, a Whole Foods in North Scottsdale AZ requires ID for all credit- & debit-card purchases. I don't mind as I think it reduces the risk of fraud.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sunny Yeung
December 26, 2008 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I gladly show my ID when the cashier asks for it -- I've got no fraudulent activity to hide. I don't see any reason to get bent out of shape.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
VeiledThreats
December 27, 2008 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sunnyyeung: I have no problem with the police breaking down my door with no warrant to look a round a bit, I have nothing illegal to hide.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jjeefff
December 26, 2008 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I called my credit card company and spoke with a customer service agent and someone from \"authorizations.\" Both said it was perfectly OK for a retailer to require ID. So I see no way for a customer to enforce a contract between a credit card company and a retailer.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
closed_account
December 26, 2008 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjeefff: Whoever you spoke with is misinformed. Check the Visa and Mastercard merchant rules yourself. Never rely on a $7/hr person to give you accurate advice.

I enforce these rules by refusing to show my ID. If you want to treat me like a criminal you can put all the crap in my cart back on your shelf- Another store that doesn't treat me like a criminal will take my money. And as you can guess I don't show receipts ever either (except Sams).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
December 27, 2008 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ma3145tt: At a warehouse club (Sam's, Costco, BJ's, etc.) you typically agree to a receipt check as part of the membership agreement. You've agreed in advance to play by their rules for the privilege of shopping there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let me see if I get this merchant agreement business straight...


You, as a customer, HAVE TO sign your card. No \"SEE ID\" nonsense or anything like that.


They, as a merchant, HAVE TO make sure the card is signed. They cannot ask for proof that the card belongs to you.


In fact, they can't say boo if the signatures don't match because, by the time you've signed it, the transaction is complete. This last part I know from 12 years of retail experience.


And this is awesome why... ?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unobservant: actually, they can say boo. it's called a \"code 10\" & anyone accepting cards at a POS should know what it is & how to use it.

& the \"authorization\" is complete when the slip is signed. the transaction doesn't complete until the hold period expires (usually 3 days).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zimmi88
December 26, 2008 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Hmm... I've worked at POS at a major retailer, and I've never heard of \"Code 10.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zimmi88: this is also helpful:

[usa.visa.com]

incidentally, could i have your employer's billing address so i can pass on a bill for training?!? =P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zimmi88: then here's a little reading info your boss(es) neglected to provide you with:

[usa.visa.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
December 26, 2008 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

More than one person I know has been the victim of credit card fraud, so I'm perfectly happy to slide my ID out of my wallet at the same time as my credit card. It takes such a small amount of effort to give myself that little extra bit of potential protection. Other clearly see this as a personal affront of the most heinous nature, and I do wonder if they'll have the same take on this terribly inconvenient policy should someone decide to perpetrate fraud in their name.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The sign in the picture does not appear to be an Apple sign, it is in wrong color, style, typeface, etc. Look at the other signs at the Apple that are from Apple HQ, they are white with black text in a clear block holder. The pictured sign is clearly very different in look and feel. Therefore, I assume that the local store purchased the sign and it is not an Apple HQ authorized action.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hills
December 26, 2008 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Merchant agreement or not, the bottom line is that we ALL lose when fraudulent purchases happen - I used to be on the 'not showing my ID bandwagon', but then came to my senses - the merchant agreement just doesn't make sense - stores should be allowed to check id because it's in the best interest of the credit card companies and the credit card consumers.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
closed_account
December 26, 2008 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hillsrovey: So they need to change policies, not just go rouge and do as they wish.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
December 26, 2008 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hillsrovey: And also we all lose when privacy is disrespected systematically. Fraud costs us mere money, but intrusive policies chip away at our basic human rights.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Geoff Schweigert
December 26, 2008 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This policy isn't new. I was fired from Apple in August for breaking this policy.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Wowwee, a Zeppelin! SteveDave
December 26, 2008 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Geoff Schweigert: No it's not new. That's why there are stories at the end of the article going back over a year to show it has happened before.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
December 26, 2008 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hasn't this been BEAT TO DEATH ALREADY. Stay on topic people this is about Apple failing to follow merchant agreement once again. The fact that some of you are okay with flashing you ID or having your bags check at wally world is not what this post was or is about.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
December 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My driver's license is a license to drive, not a license to use a credit card. I've experimented with trying to use other kinds of photo ID before (my building access card from work, my passport, a student ID), and was told that no, those forms of ID were not acceptable--it HAD to be a DL. Honestly. Those boobs can say anything, right or wrong, and we have to knuckle under?


Full disclosure: I sign my card lightly in red ball-point pen and then I take a black Sharpie and over the top of the signature I write \"CHECK PHOTO ID\". I get asked for ID about one in twenty transactions here in the US. I got asked on each and every transaction when I was on business trips to Scotland and Germany. I am pleased when I'm asked. But that's my decision, not the merchant's.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
VeiledThreats
December 27, 2008 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@speedwell: I find that they asked in Europe hard to believe. In Europe, many people don't drive by choice and those who do have DLs that don't have pictures on them. Quite a few people own passports but don't carry them about to prove identity fr the most part, especially once they're obviously old enough to purchase alcohol. With the pin system on European credit cards, even my signature was looked at awkwardly as they didn't understand why I didn't have a chip and pin. I've noticed that's a continent far less obsessed with seeing \"zeh paperz pleaze\", most people don't have them to show.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
December 26, 2008 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@speedwell: Incidentally, I never allow the cashier to write down the DL information. Talk about an engraved invitation to ID fraud. I might as well give them my mother's maiden name and the last four digits of my SS number while I'm at it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 6:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@speedwell: Any baboon can memorize the 7 characters or so in a drivers license. Just because they didn't \"write it down\" is absolutely NO protection from it later being used for identity theft against YOU. (And Steve Jobs ain't gonna be volunteering to pony up the money to fix up your credit).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
December 27, 2008 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dweebster:

Please. You can't do anything with a drivers licence number.

Here... go ahead and try.

PA license 22487536

Have fun.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wabba
December 26, 2008 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I submitted this story (and to be honest I didn't think it would make it but awesome!)

Anyways, just to clear something up, its not an Apple Store. Its actually a store called The Mac Store, a Apple reseller in the Pacific Northwest [www.themacstore.com] They are the ones who posted this professionally made sign. So maybe its not as big of news now, but I just found it amusing that a store would have such a well made sign.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
December 28, 2008 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wabba: SO why did you write in that it was an official APPLE policy when you now have to admit that you were at a story not run by Apple?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 6:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wabba: If only Macintosh computers were made so well....

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
December 26, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Where I work, we are required by corporate to check ID on all card purchases. This policy is heavily enforced by management.

Personally, I would probably allow a sale without ID if the customer really pressed me on it, but for the most part, I and my customers just go along with the policy.

It's not worth risking my job over.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 6:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: I don't know about your state, but in California it's supposedly illegal to fire people for refusing to violate the law for their employer. The state investigators are dumber than a box of rocks, but on paper it's the law.

I don't know if being fired for failing to risk a violent confrontation with a customer who knows the Merchant Agreement text and chooses not to produce ID is in the same category. But it would be interesting to have an attorney test it, if you happen to have the ten thousand dollars sitting around.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qwerty017
December 26, 2008 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Yep. Had that response from a Popeyes Chicken once. \"Its corporate policy.\" Used the Mastercard merchant violation form and within a week that store no longer required ID. Its amazing what can happen when you actually ask the credit card companies to enforce their contracts.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jjeefff
December 26, 2008 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I ask again: Why have the credit card companies not unambiguously stated their policy to customers?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 26, 2008 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjeefff: would it matter? i tried to use a card once at a merchant that required a $20 minimum purchase to use a credit card. no arguing was going to change that. policy is policy when you're the customer, even if it's not the right policy.

i filed a complaint with visa - that didn't change anything either. i just go somewhere else. what else can you do?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jjeefff
December 26, 2008 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: I agree mac-phisto. The policy enforced upon the customer can't be objected to upon the basis of a private contract between the merchant and credit card company. So unless the credit card companies decided to enforce certain rules, the customer is powerless to object to merchant policies. It seems the credit card companies simply don't care. And I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future credit card companies explicitly allow ID checking.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
December 26, 2008 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's something that NEVER gets discussed when this topic comes up:

To all you \"what's the big deal about showing ID, it helps prevent fraud\" type people, here's something to consider: what if I don't have ID? I know I know, it's a strange concept, BUT this is the USA, NOT the USSR or Nazi Germany. We are not required to have or show ID by law. In my state, I am only required to show ID if I am driving a car or in an alcohol-serving establishment, and then, ONLY to a law enforcement officer. So if I don't drive or go to bars, I don't need ID.

So if I want to actually act like I live in the land of the free and not \"show my papers,\" I can't buy from Apple. Oh well.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
jjeefff
December 26, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: Using a credit card constitutes a private transaction between you and another merchant. The merchant can make you jump through a hoop in order to complete a purchase if they wish.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 26, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: depends on the state. i grew up in florida and it's the law that anyone 16 or older has to carry a state issued ID card or DL at all times. i didn't get a driver's license until i was 18 but i had a state issued ID card when i was 16 and had to pull it out more than once for downtown orlando cops

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
December 26, 2008 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301:

In my state, I am only required to show ID if I am driving a car or in an alcohol-serving establishment, and then, ONLY to a law enforcement officer.

Really? Your state doesn't require bartenders or bouncers to check ID before selling you alcohol? It doesn't require cashiers to check your ID before selling you tobacco products or booze?

Shit, I wish I'd gone to college in your state.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jbondkicks
December 26, 2008 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301:

This makes some sense, but I can't entirely agree with it. When we start talking about things like this start confusing rights and privileges.

You absolutely do NOT have to show your ID when using your CC, attempting to buy beer or cigarettes, or trying to get into an \"R\" rated movie. No one is forcing you to show ID, UNLESS you to take advantage of a particular service.

Having a credit card isn't a basic human right. It is inline with driving your car or going to a bar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjeefff: [usa.visa.com]

Bottom of page 29. If they fuck with me at the register after I've wasted an hour-and-a-half configuring my purchases, it's gonna be an unhappy scene for us both.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A driver's license is supposed to identify you. It's also supposed to be difficult to counterfeit, but we all know that's sometimes a laugh. Asking to prove you are the person who entered into the agreement with Visa by showing a photo I.D. (I often use my concealed carry license as proof... that way you know I'm not kidding) is NOT an invasion of privacy or a conspiracy to make you into a drone for Big Brother. I don't know why the CC companies don't require this, so WE don't have to spend days on the phone getting fraudulent charges removed. It's a convenience for US as much as the merchant, and having Joe or Jane moron make sure the name on the card matches the name on the DL isn't going to cause a revolution.

Nail the morons when they REALLY step over the line. This ain't it.... and all it does is make you look paranoid when you try to \"enforce the agreement\" by not showing your I.D. Honestly, you have to show it with a check, you have to show it to get into a bar (if you're so lucky not to look 100), and so forth. Why is it a major issue when you're being videotaped all throughout the store, checked for shoplifting going through the magnetic doorways, and harassed by clerks every step of the way?

Scanning the magnetic strip on your DL (Fry's, Office Depot) IS going too far, and I don't shop there without cash because of it. That strip is for LAW enforcement use only... and if it isn't, I'll be sure to carry a magnet next to my DL next time...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JedHans: OK Rambo. Hope your \"concealed carry\" ID has your address on it, because sooner or later you'll find someone running the register that can use a few guns.

You may feel the main argument is \"Big Brother,\" but by paying anything but cash while wearing a ski mask and full camo, you're pretty well tracked. _I_ don't want random buttclowns behind the counter having my address, birthdate, and/or (identity theft honeypot) Drivers license number simply because I went grocery shopping with my VISA. And it is very clear that VISA understands this, by the facts presented here: [usa.visa.com]

I just ask the cashier to ring up my Fruit Loops and cucumbers, accept the VISA without backtalk, and bag 'em up. No home address, no birthdate, no ID numbers in their head, thank you very much.

Isn't the whole point of \"concealed carry\" to have a little stealth about it? Why in the world would you want to flash that baby around anyway?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 27, 2008 2:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JedHans: here's why it's not required: how does a merchant prove that they verified the ID? they can't without recording it (that's why they either write your DL info on a check or require you to submit it when you sign up for a shopper's program like at the supermarket). ok, great. so now we have merchants recording & storing ID info. awesome.

i just spent 2 weeks at work trying to get ahead of a huge \"white card\" loss. after having close to 5% of our portfolio compromised, we decided to reissue our entire card stock. 10 days before christmas. imagine how happy my customers have been (in addition to the fraudulent charges & cost of reissuing stock, a conservative estimate is that we'll lose 10-15% of our transactional activity). f-ing great. & do you know why this all happened?

B/C SOME F-ING RETAILER HAD THEIR PAYMENT DATABANK COMPROMISED!!!!

sorry for yelling, but c'mon. do you really want these guys storing your ID info too? it's. not. their. job. their job is simple for a reason - so they can pay young kids peanuts to do a menial task: swipe card. approved. sign. sale complete.

please understand - i know how much it sucks to have to deal with cc fraud. now imagine what it would be like if the fraudster had your ID too. that's what would happen if we allowed merchants to start checking ID w/ cc purchase.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DeeJayQueue
December 26, 2008 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, from what I know, there are 2 main types of credit card thieves out there: Those who make their living from it, and those who are thieves of opportunity. The former would have access to fake IDs, which would make asking for ID moot. The latter would probably be more apt to use the card online rather than risk getting caught using it in person, so they wouldn't need ID. Suddenly having such a policy seems kind of useless.

I generally don't put up a fuss when people ask for ID with credit cards, and I also try to make a conscious decision to pay with cash if it's under $10.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gnortenjones
December 26, 2008 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: I have no problem with Apple, or any company, asking for ID when using a credit card. In fact, I'm usually astounded when stores DON'T ask for ID.

For the people stating that showing id doesn't stop fraud, I ask: How do you know? How do you know when something hasn't happened? I imagine most of the instances of fraud that were stopped went something like this:

\"Can I see your id?\"
\"Oh, I seem to have forgotten it. I'll come back later.\"

Also, you may not be liable for purchased made with a stolen card, but have you ever actually fought identity theft? It's a pain the ass, and if Apple asking for ID can even possibly stop it, I'm all for it.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
SadSam
December 28, 2008 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gnortenjones:


I don't like to show my ID so I don't carry it with me when I shop. So the transaction (this happened yesterday at Banana Republic) went as follows.


I was using my Visa Debit card and did not want to enter in my debit code because I prefer to always use my card as credit card. Me - how do I skip the debit part? Clerk - hit the cancel button. Me - Thanks. Clerk - I need to see your ID. Me - I don't have it with me. Clerk - Ok. Transaction was completed and I went on my merry way.


I don't get in a big debate about it and there have been a couple of times Clerks have said I can't complete the transaction without your ID and I say something along the lines of \"that's a real shame as in these tough economic times I would think your company would want to sell me these goods\" and I leave the goods on the counter and walk away after making sure the transaction was properly voided.


I don't have to show my ID and stores that require it don't have to do business with me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
December 28, 2008 8:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gnortenjones: Although the credit card companies would like you to think it is true Identity theft and credit card theft do not need to be related.

Identity theft is when someone sets up an alternate credit history based on yours and claims to be you. They would have a fake ID at the ready to use the card. in the case of identity theft the theif is using a credit card you have never seen. Maybeeven paid a few bills using the home equity loan you never knew about.

Credit card theft is someone taking and using an existing card or number. It only affects one card account and is easially taken care of,compared to ID theft.

A credit card isn't enough to commit ID theft. For that you need a credit card, phone number, address and drivers liscense number.

If cashiers checked to see that the signature on the card matched the signature on the recipt it would be enough to catch a lot of credit card fraud. It is rare that I see anyone actually check my signature, maybe 3 times in my life.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
December 26, 2008 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gnortenjones: A random stolen credit card doesn't have enough information on it to lead to full-scale identity theft, any more than one's library card does. (Possibly less so, actually, since your library card might possibly have your address or phone number on it.) They're two different issues.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rainday
December 26, 2008 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

how does the merchant agreement affect the average consumer? The agreement is between the store and the credit card company, so as a consumer, do you really have any recourse? You don't have an agreement with the store so I feel you really don't have any say except not to buy the item. Also, I always think it funny that 1/2 the people will complain that stores don't check signatures, and the other 1/2 complain that they essentially do.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rainday: People complain about a lot of things. But the point is that we can know the rules of the game and stick to our guns when we don't choose to be violated.

Bottom line: if they display a VISA or Mastercard logo, they cannot deny a transaction if you choose not to show ID. Just as they cannot deny to sell to you simply because you are a black, woman or black woman. You can *volunteer* to show your ID, but I can choose NOT to show my ID, as long as I've signed my card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jjeefff
December 26, 2008 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rainday: I agree. I don't think the merchant agreement even needs to be made public by the credit card companies. It's their business and unless the credit card companies seek enforcement, there is nothing a customer can do.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Tijil
December 26, 2008 8:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I personally present my US Passport Card as my \"Picture ID\" as it does not have my address, SSN, or signature, it does not have really much of anything of use other than my picture, name, and DOB.

It's a federal level picture ID and so far no one has \"rejected\" it because it has so little info a merchant might be interested in. [tijil.org]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jbondkicks
December 26, 2008 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

CC company says you can't use your card unless it is signed. Millions of unsigned cards are used everyday, and the CC company doesn't really seem to care. CC company \"See ID\" is not a valid way to sign your card. Plenty of cards have those words scrawled on the signature panel, and the CC company doesn't seem to care. CC company says merchant should not ask for ID. Millions of merchants ask for ID and CC company doesn't seem to care.

The CC companies are CLEARLY not concerned about these rules in their contracts. They could be taking retailers to court and refusing to do businesses with companies that require ID, but they aren't. You have no way of forcing them to enforce policies they don't care to enforce. You have the right to refuse to deal with them.

Say I've entered a contract with you that I will give you 50 dollars a month for the next 10 years. I call you and say, \"You know, I lost my job, would it be okay if I missed this month's payment?\" You say, \"Yeah, that's no problem, just make sure you make January's payment.\" I might be in breach of contract, but if you don't care, and you take no action, it's a \"Penalty Declined\" sort of situation.

Until a CC company decides to call merchants out on this, they are turning a blind eye to it, and it's a situation that will not change.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jbondkicks: They WILL do it, at least VISA will. But it's on the __customer__ to file complaints with their bank about it, as they require having a customer complaint on file before they will kick the merchant's ass.

I'm compiling a dossier on violators such as Macy's and others that are pulling this crap, and after I have enough violations on a merchant to make it worth my while I'm gonna take the time to write the letters.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jbondkicks
December 28, 2008 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dweebster:

Will do what, though? Give them a stern talking to? Remind them of the policy? Perhaps. One thing we can be sure won't happen is Visa pulling out all all Macy's because the retailer insists on asking for ID.

Also, if they REALLY care, why do they need a customer to complain about it. Visa is complete oblivious to the fact that thousands of retailers ask people for ID every day? I think not.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Michael King
December 26, 2008 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom:

As a retailer, I have no problem with companies asking for ID. We generally do on all purchases over $500. If you don't want to show ID, shop somewhere else.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
December 26, 2008 10:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael King: As a consumer, I'm perfectly willing to take my large purchases (and small) to retailers that follow the contracts they've signed.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Its_Miller_Time
December 26, 2008 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Take from page 29 of the Visa Merchant Agreement...


\"When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? Although Visa
rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants
cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot
refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to
provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their
regular card acceptance procedures. Laws in several states also make it illegal
for merchants to write a cardholder's personal information, such as an address or
phone number, on a sales receipt.?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
liz.lemonade
December 26, 2008 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder what the reaction would be if this post were about Best Buy instead of Apple.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Luftvier
December 26, 2008 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael King:

As a shopper, I have a problem with retailers not following the terms of service. We generally like retailers to follow rules. If you don't want to, don't take credit cards.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
December 28, 2008 8:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Luftvier: If you ever have a dispute with a company remember if they checked your ID. A merchant violating the agreement right off the bat will help your cause along.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XianZhuXuande
December 26, 2008 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, it is against merchant agreements... but I still can't bring myself to care. It does make it a little more difficult for a thief to use a stolen card and while that doesn't stop them from going somewhere else, it does possibly stop them from going to one of the very best places in the world to buy goods for resale.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
XianZhuXuande
December 26, 2008 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@XianZhuXuande: And I'll only consider this corporate policy if this sign is seen in more than one store. Otherwise, it is a local thing, regardless of how nice that sign looks.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Thain
December 26, 2008 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I work for an online merchant that requires detailed matching information on all credit card purchases: not only do we need to have the billing address in its entirety, we also need to know what telephone number your bank/CC company has on file for you, and we require a verbal conversation ON THAT NUMBER.

On top of that, if the system is shipping anywhere but the billing address, we require that the credit card company have the SHIPPING address on file (consequently, if someone uses a debit card, we have to ship to their billing address, since most banks won't store an alternate address).

We don't check drivers licenses or anything like that, but we have actively prevented many cases of fraud, and even been able to help CC companies catch a few identity thieves.

Yes, we get complaints from people who don't appreciate having to add a memo to their CC account authorizing an alternate shipping address, and I've been fussed outmore than once for making things so inconvenient, but we do it to protect our customers as much as we do to protect ourselves.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Thain: That's certainly acceptable, and covered in the merchant agreement. Face to face transactions where the customer is in possession of their signed card is the issue here.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
December 26, 2008 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I understand everyone's upset at these. I had similar things at my store. If anyone ever said anything (which, in my case, nobody ever did) I was ready with the response \"Yes, you could stop us from taking card X. However, I made 2 sales this year with people using that card; both customers being surprised I even take that card. Therefore it is of no consequence if simply stop accepting it altogether, which would be the end result of any complaints.\"

Of course, unless you're at the point where the credit card companies need you more than you need them, you shouldn't be doing something like that. :-)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: I agree that if you aren't willing to honor the terms of your merchant agreement than you should not display the logo that indicates you accept that card. To display that you accept a card and then wantonly violate key terms of card acceptance isn't good for anyone. Just post a \"cash only\" sign and live with it.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Voyou_Charmant
December 26, 2008 9:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless of the arguement for/against showing an ID, in terms of stopping fraud, the simple fact is they are not allowed to require it. It's that simple. It's a contractually agreed to term and they signed off on it.

The whole it stops fraud vs doesn't actually stop fraud discussion has no bearing on the very clear fact that they are simply not allowed to require it and yet they are actually investing in signs that state the opposite.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
December 26, 2008 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drdom: Also, If you want to stop a cc theif from using a card they stole from you, CALL YOUR CARDHOLDER AND REPORT IT STOLEN!!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
December 26, 2008 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: Cardholder=cc company. My brain farted and I was typing too fast.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr-Mr
December 26, 2008 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only people who might be against this may be the ones using other people's cards. I actually welcome the person taking my credit card asking me for ID. That tells me that he/she is doing what it's supposed to be done. I don't want to deal with lazy clerks who don't verify anything.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 27, 2008 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr-Mr: actually, i'm against it & i work for a card issuer - the people who take the hit when white cards are used.

kind of grasping at straws with that argument, aren't we now?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
December 26, 2008 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr-Mr: \"The only people who might be against this may be the ones using other people's cards.

Or, also anyone who thinks personal privacy is important and worth protecting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LandruBek: C'mon - those people still exist?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TruthAndTheory
December 26, 2008 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LandruBek:
If someone steals my credit card, I sure would like them to show photo ID to try and use it.

Privacy? One swipe of your card, and the store already has all the information on you they need. Hello, unless you use cold hard cash, you are leaving a trail of yourself. And even if you show your ID to the sales clerk, they have 20 people in line behind you. They are not trying to memorize your information in 5 seconds flat. Get over yourselves. I'm all for protecting privacy, but I also want to protect my bank account.

I often use my debit card. If that gets stolen, I DEFINITELY want someone to have to show ID to use that. They could wipe me out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TruthAndTheory:
1) People have the capacity to memorize things. And, there are not always \"20 people\" behind you. And, a pen and paper can help download things from a crook's brain.

2) You use a debit card, too? Fail. You have more serious vulnerabilities than the cashier's friends simply breaking into your house.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jbondkicks
December 28, 2008 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dweebster:

The problem is that I think refusing to show your ID just makes you feel better without really making you any safer.

Your cable and/or electric company most likely has your Name, Address, Phone Number, Last four of your SS and a CC number or Bank account number. You can't see the folks you talk to when you call in to make a change on your account AND they have a pen and paper sitting next to them. They can also take a look and see what account you used to pay your bill last time. This seems to be much more dangerous than flashing an ID at a cashier at time of purchase.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
December 27, 2008 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TruthAndTheory: I agree with you that I would like to protect both my bank account and my privacy. But we would strike the balance differently. Of course, if my CC were stolen, then I too would wish for every obstacle to be placed in front of the thief. I'd also like the thief to turn himself in, that and a bag of chips. But as one of the vast majority whose CCs are not stolen, I do not want merchants to assume by default that my card is stolen unless I prove otherwise.

I disagree that showing a credit card is as intrusive as showing a credit card plus a government-issued photo ID. The CC only shows a 19 digit number and my name. That's all. Not my address, weight, birthday, blood type, DL number, etc. I am well aware that CC purchases leave an electronic trail, but that is a separate concern.

It's none of Apple's business if I used to weigh 350#. I should not have to show their Geniuses a government document saying so. How can you not recognize this as intrusive? \"Get over yourself?\" Get over what? I just don't think keeping my DL info private is outlandish egotism.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LandruBek: I object! Anyone who is qualified to run a cash register should have full access to anything in your wallet. Your business is THEIR business!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
skitchparks
December 26, 2008 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not like their selling pez dispensers. If a credit card is stolen and used in their store they will most likely answer to a +$1,000 charge back. Sometimes they pull this crap with me at walmart when I buy over $100 with my moms credit card, so I buy less than that amount. People should just figure out how to deal with things like this. If you're using daddies credit card to buy a laptop, order it from apple.com and you might even save on sales tax!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Vicky
December 26, 2008 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's my problem with the system:

Merchant: \"May I see your ID?\"
Cardholder: \"Yes. But it's a paper license because I recently changed my address (and/or name).\"
Merchant: [Two options]

Option 1: I'm sorry, we don't accept paper licenses.
Option 2: No problem.

With Option 1 you're denying a perfectly legal state-issued form of identification. I've had to put up with this every time I've moved and when I was married because the DPS took my old license away or cut it in half or somesuch when I applied for a new one. It takes about 6 weeks to correct so over the course of my adulthood I've spent nearly a full year without a \"plastic\" license.

With Option 2 you're accepting a form of identification that can be printed on a home computer with absolutely no effort whatsoever and that seems just patently ridiculous.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vicky: Option 3: \"No. Please use a paper bag.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
December 26, 2008 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For everyone that thinks showing an id is going to save you from unauthorized use of your card take this into account.
I used to work in nightclubs in NYC. I sold bottles, meaning people I sold to generally have HUGE bills in the thousands. In order to buy a bottle with a card, you had to present a credit card and matching ID. From that we would make a copy of both, run the card and sell you your bottle.
I can't even begin to tell you how many fraudulent transactions I had go through with credit cards WITH matching photo iDs.
Having a card with a matching id does nothing to prove its not stolen.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RetailGnome
December 26, 2008 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a retail manager I can state for a fact that the stores DO absorb the charges on fraudulant usage of a credit card. We had a thief buy several thousand dollars of merchandise on a stolen credit card (which had not been reported stolen yet) and we were liable for the loss. Apple is just covering their rear. I know it is a violation of the STANDARD merchant agreement it is possible Apple has gotten a special waiver.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
December 26, 2008 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Asking for ID is a small invasion of privacy. Privacy is important; systematic erosion of privacy is wrong. Small violations, if they aren't resisted, add up to big violations (\"boiling frog syndrome\"*). This policy is a small step in the wrong direction, and wrong trumps small.

Frankly I don't care who should be assessed the cost of fraud: that's a business decision that Apple, the CC issuer, and Visa/Mastercard need to work out. Ultimately we consumers will have to pick up the tab, so it doesn't much matter to me who tallies up the bill.

I know lots of people think this is policy is a step in the right direction, because supposedly it prevents fraud. Eh, maybe, but I'd like to see the numbers. Also, I think robust privacy is valuable enough to tolerate a minor (I assume) amount of fraud.

(*I know the myth of the boiling frog has been debunked but it's still a good symbol.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TruthAndTheory
December 26, 2008 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Frankly, this is no. big. deal.

I'm tired of Americans acting like every ultra-minor thing is a huge violation of all the rights and freedoms we have so valiantly fought for.

Showing ID to verify you are the user of your credit card is a good thing. If your card is stolen, do you want the thief to be able to use it? If s/he had to show ID, then it wouldn't be usable. That helps YOU as well as the store. It's nuts that consumers don't see the benefits of this as well.

And why should a store NOT want to see ID, to make sure they aren't selling stuff to a thief? Especially during the holidays, when theft is rampant.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TruthAndTheory: Everyone who jockeys a cash register can be trusted with your home address, birthdate, AND driver's license number? You talk as though you are dealing with a \"store,\" but in reality you are dealing with PEOPLE. And, sometimes *people* burglarize, molest kids, rape, commit identity theft, etc.

If you're ok with taking your chances with the odds, feel free (although it just encourages them). I'll continue to limit exposure of my family and myself to the odds that one of the thousands of cashiers I deal with each year might just need a little additional income or entertainment at my expense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
December 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TruthAndTheory: If they've stolen your card, they already can use it online.

A violation is a violation whether it is huge or small.

It's nuts that some citizens (Americans or not) fail to see the benefits of privacy.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sheteststhewaters
December 26, 2008 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Judging from the Mac Store business cards that are out, it's probably an Apple Authorized Retailer and not actually an Apple Store. I know at least in Florida you *cannot* ask for an ID unless the card is not signed.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Alkon
December 26, 2008 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's actually more than a license to drive. It's a form of certified identification. I helped a homeless artist friend get his Illinois birth certificate so he could get a driver's license without the driving part you have added to yours -- a California non-driver ID -- from the DMV.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
closed_account
December 26, 2008 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wanna report your local Apple store? Go here: [www.mastercard.com]

Use the form if the merchant does any of these:

-In order to make a MasterCard purchase, the merchant/retailer required a minimum or maximum amount.
-The merchant/retailer is adding a charge for using your MasterCard card.
-The merchant/retailer required identification.
-A merchant/retailer displaying the MasterCard decal in their window refused to accept my MasterCard card.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sam-i-am
December 26, 2008 11:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How is it considered \"third party\" if the first party is required to be there?

That's like saying \"you may speak or your friend, but only if he's here and speaks for himself.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UnicornMaster
December 26, 2008 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't have a problem with this. Apple sells expensive high value items that are easy to resell. I don't have a problem showing my ID to stop some thief from using my credit card. Who goes around without their ID anyway?

I do have a problem with places photo-copying my ID. Or convenience stores that require a \"minimum purchase\" to use my credit card. Why can't I put a stick of gum on my MasterCard?

Had some fraud on an old card that went un-noticed for 8 days because no one bothered to even check signatures, I'm sure.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Voyou_Charmant
December 27, 2008 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: Really? That's how you read it?

When in her story did she say she felt good, or better, or that she \"did the right thing\"? You're just looking for reasons to be outraged. It appears that she advised against calling them, and the lady insisted (the customers always right! Right?).

At the end of the day, the woman should have simply been added as an authorized user. Amex and the commenter have no way of knowing if that woman was allowed to use the card, so Amex chose to err on the side of caution.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 27, 2008 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Voyou_Charmant: at the time, amex rules stated that for a person to be an authorized user on the account they needed to have their own card with their own name on it. same number though, just printed specially for them. it was in 2002 though so i don't know if that has changed. according to the contract with amex that we were trained to comply with - no one but the person whose name is on the card can use it.
at that time visa and mastercard would print two cards with the name of the primary account holder, say \"john smith\" but they allowed his spouse or child, etc \"mary smith\" or \"junior smith\" to sign their own name on the back and use the card as an authorized user. no idea if that is still in effect because i haven't worked as cashier in two years.
it's funny though - when cashiers/managers DO enforce the contract set out by the credit card company, people get just as upset as when they don't [ie to check or not check ID]

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
parnote
December 27, 2008 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am SO amazed by the number of sheeple ringing in on this one.

It's amazing the number of people who are willing to give up their rights. Slowly, one small step at a time, we are forced to more and more give up our rights. When does it stop?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
December 27, 2008 1:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parnote:

I'm more amazed that people have elevated buying something on your credit card without showing ID as a RIGHT. It's not. There's nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights. It may be a violation of a contract between the merchant and the credit card company for them to require ID, but it's not a RIGHT.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: It's my \"right\" under the agreement that the VISA card operates within [usa.visa.com] (page 29).

If the merchant wants to insist on a \"right\" to see ID that they have expressly agreed NOT to do as condition of card acceptance, now who is in the wrong here?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
maestrosteve
December 27, 2008 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Enough with the \"Apple does this...they should be reported.....,Who do they think they are?....etc.\".

This story is NOT about Apple or The Apple Store. If you read the entire thread, you'll see the OP said it is about one particular store that sells Macs that is not even called the Apple Store. They violate the merchant agreement, and everyone wants to slam Apple and all their company stores.

Do you really care about being fair, or are you just looking to slam a big company?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 27, 2008 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Merchant speak ahead.


1) There ain't no way a merchant could possibly verify a signature. Just ain't going to happen. VISA, MC and others know that simple fact. More importantly the CC companies don't want an arguement between consumers and merchants as those kind of situations tend to discourage the merchant from accepting the card.


So why the signature?


2) Signature on the card requirement is just a means of formalizing criminal proceedings against an illegal card user AND to complete the contract between card holder and card issuer. Sorry, that is all it is. The lack of a signed card allows the user to potentially defraud the CC company and/or merchant. Signing \"Check ID\" could be considered an deliberate attempt to evade payment to the CC company. This is one of those big arse sticking points between CC and merchant agreements... merchant is responsible for insuring a valid contract exists between the CC holder and the CC issuer. And the signature on the card is a requirement of that legal contract.


3) As a merchant I don't give a fark how clear your signature may or may not be. I don't really care if I can decipher your name etc. Remember, the CC company knows I can't really verify your signature. So all I care about is a signature that might be legit such that I can affirm a legal contract exists between CC holder and CC issuer. Lack of a signature means that I could be responsible for any disputed purchases between the CC holder and CC issuer.... per the terms of my merchant agreement.


4) The merchant agreement you see on the 'net is NOT the merchant agreement which I signed. Wanted to see my merchant agreement? Then you must sign the nondisclosure agreement with my merchant bank and Visa and then be approved to view the document. Says so right on the 'net. Pretty much means you won't be seeing my merchant agreement anytime soon.


5) My merchant agreement says I am on the hook for consumer disputes when a card is not signed and the consumer can prove to the issuing CC company that the card was not signed. Like I previously said, an unsigned card can be used to defraud the merchant. A signed card just defrauds the CC company. I like signed cards.


6) The materials provided by VISA and other CC companies as well as our merchant agreements directs the merchant to screen for suspect CC activity. Actually does more than that. On some documents we are instructed to view photo ID and match the signature on the photo ID to the signature on the sales ticket. Why match the signatures when VISA etal know we are not signature experts? Another way to verify if the card has been signed per the terms of the CC issuer's legal agrement with the CC holder.


7) And checking photo ID does prevent some fraud. The lazy stupid kind of fraud.


8) Visa and their friends just love to promote their usability of their CCs. One way to promote the usability of the card is no ID required (versus checks for example). At the same time VISA etal are very good at double speak and double standards with the merchant. It is the VISA double speak that causes the most problems between consumers and merchants.


Take a look at the Apple warning. Think the merchant just reread their merchant agreement? Think the merchant just got burned by a third party card or the CC company?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate-Shill: Thank you. Neither the merchant nor the customer likes the catch-22, and talking with VISA is an exercise in doublespeak.

That said, I err on the side of my personal safety, and if I'm in your store I'll look for agreement that the VISA be taken without me sharing my personal data to your or whoever is running the cash register. If they want us to show ID then I _will_ use it a LOT less, and when I pay cash I'm a lot better at noticing how much money I'm spending...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 28, 2008 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dweebster:


Personally I like state issued ID cards that provide just your name and picture. What is wrong with those? I already have your name (from the CC) and if you are shopping in my business you darn well know I have already got your picture on video.


My State driver's license stopped printing SSNs on the DL. Good move.


That said, I would darn like to stop the entire check signature crapola.... which would also mean the check ID requirement would be dropped.

My desire ain't going to happen because VISA, MC, Discover and AmEX are just looking for ways to screw over the merchant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 28, 2008 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto:


I never copied any part of the agreement nor posted any direct quotations from the agreement. Comments made with regards to portion of said agreement were made in general terms and intentionally ambigious so as to not represent direct quotes.


I think I am covered.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
December 27, 2008 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate-Shill: thank you - very insightful. as a card issuer, i appreciate your position. we share one thing in common - VISA screws us both.

ehh...btw. wouldn't some of this be considered disclosure of the agreement (thereby violating your non-disclosure agreement)? =P just sayin...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
digitalgimpus
December 27, 2008 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

IMHO you should have a choice when you sign up for a credit card:

1. Requires an ID when you make a purchase. Has a warranty for fraud/theft protection so if your card has an unauthorized purchase, your not responsible.

2. Standard no-id required. No warranty. It's no your card you pay.

I hate the idea that people abuse this system and simply claim they didn't buy that... and get away with it.

We're all paying for these people, and lots of people do this. It's a nice way to get something \"discounted\" and \"stick it to the man\".

Meanwhile, I've never done this, and now banks want \"bailouts\" to help keep this and other scams going strong.

Screw it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 7:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@digitalgimpus: I have paid my credit card bills every month in full for thirty years. Unlike the bankers, I'm not begging for bailouts, nor am I trying to get something \"discounted\" and \"stick it to the man\".

If you think that giving up your address, birthdate, bloodtype, and license number to random strangers who run registers is somehow noble, then go ahead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
digitalgimpus
December 27, 2008 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dweebster: This is a very common practice.

You should have a choice. If you don't care, don't show ID, but don't expect everyone else to pay for you.

If you want the assurance and prevention of ID theft, show ID.

I don't see why I should be paying for millions of people who are taking advantage of the honor system. It's outright criminal, and it's \"normal\" by american standards.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 27, 2008 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As noted, the sign does not appear to be located at an Apple store. Neither the desktop, the sign lettering, the phone or anything else are familiar to me as Apple-related. In fact, if you look at the corner of the business card in the lower-left of the photo, it mentions \"...Mac Store,\" indicating it's not an Apple store.

We should also differentiate between what's legal (law passed by some legislative body), and what violates a private company's policy (VISA, MasterCard). One has to wonder: if it's so egregious to ask for identification to complete a credit card purchase, why isn't it prohibited by federal or state law? One might also wonder why it isn't required by law, since it's a simple, reasonable step in helping to reduce credit card fraud.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ionerox
December 27, 2008 2:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone else notice that this is absolutely not the type or style of sign you'd see in an Apple-owned retail store? Anyone who's spent time there knows that all their signs are in clear acrylic holders and don't have blue countertops anywhere to be seen. Plus, the little bit of the business card in the bottom left corner seems to be something \"Mac Store\", which isn't how Apple names their stores.

At best, this photo is of a sign at an Apple Reseller, which they can probably set whatever rules they want for their credit card rules. It's not from an Apple Retail store.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
xjeyne
December 27, 2008 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I did a little research on this myself and discovered that state law overrides merchant agreements. I found out from clicking the link provided by LandruBek. The Visa/MC merchant agreement plainly states that merchants cannot require an ID to complete a purchase, then goes on to say, \"California law does not prohibit a merchant from requiring a consumer who pays for goods or services by credit card to show identification such as a California driver's license or California ID. If these are not available, another form of photo identification can be required to be shown.\"

I live in Washington state and I was curious about our own laws, so I poked around the intarwebz a bit and found this: \"SB 5720 allows merchants to ask for identification for a credit card transaction. While the bill does not require merchants to do so, it declares null and void merchant agreements used by some credit card companies, including Visa and MasterCard, that prohibit stores from asking for additional identification.\"

Merchant agreements are irrelevant. Look up your state law.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 27, 2008 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xjeyne:


Merchant Agreements are irrelevant because YOU (meaning all consumers as a collective unit) are never going to see MY (meaning all merchants as a collective unit) merchant agreement.


The Merchant Agreement published on the web is a consumer friendly guideline of what might or might not be included in a Merchant Agreement.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
boomshakla
December 27, 2008 2:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Haven't read all replies, and there's too much to say, but I'm not for requiring ID for purchases. My driver's license is to show I can drive a car, not a way to use a credit card. Credit cards are designed to save time and make things easier. I doubt more than .1% of cards are stolen, and I'm sure most would be canceled soon anyway. I would be a fool to show my ID unsolicited. In the year I have used credit cards, I have only been asked for ID twice. I thought about fighting it, but chose to just roll along. Besides, with self-serve checkouts and internet, there's no need for IDs there.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
murphy1701
December 27, 2008 4:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I license is more than allowing a person to drive. It is required for such things as to purchase alcohol, tobacco, and evidently now to fly. As a retail worker, I personally don't care about asking. I will ask but if I am given a hard time I just do it. I mean... I will just let the card holder handle the fraud mess later. Is it really that easy to report fraud? How much time does it take? I guess I am not supposed to care.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 8:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@murphy1701: Takes about 5-15 minutes, tops. I'll risk doing that once a year or so rather than taking the greater risk of exposing my address or ID to some local stranger with bad intentions.

I'm sure reporting a burglary or murder takes a little longer than 5-15 minutes, and the cleanup must be hell.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dweebster
December 27, 2008 6:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Frankly, I don't need the anonymous cashier to have the opportunity to memorize my drivers license number and/or street address simply because I present a credit card. Please tell me exactly WHOSE \"identity\" is the store protecting with these policies - cause they sure as hell ain't mine.

My kid worked retail for a while and to keep his mind active through the boredom of that work he made a game out of memorizing the 16 characters and other markings of people's cards. It would take even less for that impoverished temp staffperson to memorize the 7 characters in a driver's license or even a street address. Think about THAT as your pretty wife shops around all weekend - rapists do occasionally qualify to jockey a cash register. And if you are buying a lot of travel stuff and happen to mention an upcoming two-week trip to Europe you are taking, your street address might be of some value to SOMEONE.

I had to politely decline my ID to an Officemax employee tonight, fortunately it didn't come to fisticuffs over $14 worth of batteries. I'm not shy and will call over a manager or call VISA International before I share personal information with a stranger that I choose not to share with.

If VISA changes or has changed their merchant agreement, then they should share that with us. I'll pay cash or (more likely) walk away before risking greater harm by pretending the anonymous cashier is a graphologist or police officer.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
closethipster
December 27, 2008 12:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know... that doesn't look like any Apple Store I've ever been in. And the guy's business card (if that's what's in the bottom left of the photo) says \"Mac Store.\" What's a Mac Store? And the lowercase \"i.d.\" in the sign? Fishy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
December 27, 2008 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So the person who submitted this ADMITS it wasn't an Apple store, but the Consumerist insists on calling it an Apple store in their \"article.\" How many other things did they did wrong? Like the link that shows that stores CAN request ID? Man, I understand the people who run this site hate Apple for some reason, but can you try to be a little more objective?

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
December 27, 2008 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These threads are so much fun. Can we up the awesomeness by having the Mac Store ask for a copy of the receipt on the way out?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DanGarion
December 27, 2008 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They are a private company and I think they actually can choose to not accept your payment regardless of what the merchant agreement says. True they cannot require you to show your ID, but they can choose to just not accept your payment if you choose to not show it.

This is the same as the merchant that will not accept 67.92 in coins as payment for an item. They can choose what forms of payment to accept.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 27, 2008 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That isn't an Apple store. If you look in the lower left, there's a business card that says \"Authorized Mac Store.\" This is a reseller, and Apple has no control over its policies.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
P.T.Wheatstraw
December 27, 2008 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

snoop-blog
It's no wonder sites like this were created. This site is dedicated to helping a consumer who is being treated like crap by companies.
Except not. Being a good \"Consumerist\" is about knowing the rules and know what you are getting into. You have to expect the vendor to follow the rules and you have to be good about following them as well.

There are plenty of instances where the rules are asinine, and in that case, there are ways of handling it (an EECB to request an exception, for example).

If Apple is concerned about identity theft and fraudulent transactions then they need to take it to the credit card companies, not place requirements on the customers that contradict the cardholder agreement.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tooki
December 27, 2008 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Uhh... hello? That's not an Apple sign.

Apple's signs have a clear visual design, and that folded cardboard crap isn't part of it.

Moreover, the business card below says \"... Mac Store\". Apple Stores are not called \"Mac Stores\". This is an Apple dealer, not an Apple Store.

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
December 28, 2008 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a retailer I have a few simple rules.
1. You need to show i.d. to buy from us in most cases.
2. We won't take your credit card for a purchase under $10
3. If you pay in cash, I'll throw in free delivery. If you pay with a credit card, don't think about it.

And if you don't like it, you can shop at my competitors who will be happy to charge you 25% more than we do. But at least you won't have to suffer the indignity of showing us your driver's license. You can also call Visa, Mastercard, or American Express and after they have some overseas CSR call us with a \"friendly reminder\", we'll give them a \"friendly reminder\" that we sent them almost a million dollars in fees last year. Then we'll go right back to violating their rules and protect our bottom line.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
December 28, 2008 8:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: You can get around the violation of the merchant agreement by requiring ID for all purchases.

Really so could Apple.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 28, 2008 2:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DanGarion

Your coin analogy is not correct. The government has certain rules with regards to coins. The stores can reject certain coinage after a point but not before.

And while technically your correct they could have their own policy they would be in violation of an agreement they made with someone

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
planetdaddy
December 28, 2008 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

quit crying and show them your id...babies

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
props_nyc
December 28, 2008 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

my card was just cloned and used for fradulent purchases in mexico last week. the signature will do nothing to prevent this. i'll be happy to show my ID to anybody I'm trying to purchase from.

anyone against this policy is a total schmuck.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tonixtonix
December 28, 2008 9:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seems like this works out _better_ for scammers. If I dispute the charge on my credit card bill, my card company contacts the merchant asking for the signed receipt. Since no one bothered to actually check that my signature matches may card, I now own a free MacBook Pro! Unless my name is \"See ID\" of course...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
clickable
December 29, 2008 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

When one of our cards was stolen some time ago, the way we found out was when the card issuer called us about suspicious activity. Someone had tried to use the card that morning... at an Apple store. The person trying to use the card (a male) was clearly not the same gender as the name on the card (an obviously female name). The store was immediately suspicious and called the card issuer, and they were able to stop him.


I understand it's problematic in principle because the majority of customers are honest, but I can see the retailers' and card issuers' POV. I also know that the costs of fraud are eventually passed on to us, the consumers. Showing a photo ID is not a big deal to me, and it certainly wouldn't be a big deal for me when it comes to a major purchase (like at an Apple store). When I'm signing a charge slip for three thousand dollars, I can't blame them for wanting to take an extra thirty seconds to make sure I'm actually the person who owns the card.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
octajohnny
December 29, 2008 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does the consumerist continue to put up stories like this? Like it's some sort of big deal to show your ID when making a big purchase... anyone who complains about this, see how you like it when your ID gets stolen and someone runs up a few grand in charges on YOUR card and you have to spend days/weeks calling to dispute charges and fix the mess that some store NOT checking your ID has caused you.

Between this and some of the other stories that are \"pro-consumer\", this site is just getting silly... as in \"retarded\". I'm thinking the headlines are to cause some sort of shock-value controversy and get the posts up (and therefore the site hits, and therefore the ad revenue).

Sensationalizing silly stories like these should be left to the major newspapers (and tmz.com and the National Enquirer)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
friedduck
December 29, 2008 9:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm with Apple on this one. Why should they be on the hook for fraud? Further, the consumer isn't a party to their agreement with Visa/MC.

I don't get the hysteria since a lot of merchants require this.

Reply
","","","","","","","");