Cash is SO not cool anymore



  • So there's an ad for Visa playing now, featuring the New Orleans Saints, and a bunch of their fans getting ready for the game.  They engage in all sorts of pre-game revelry, including the great American pastime: consumerism.  Fans are shown using their RFID-enabled cards and, yes, even their old outdated magnetic stripe cards to buy all sorts of sports-related implements to prepare for the rituals of worshiping professional sports.

    Now, this total a-hole shows up in the checkout line.  He's a smug looking guy with a pink shirt, popped collar, sweater tied around his neck, and he's buying tennis balls.  It's bad enough that he looks like he looks like he stepped out a "pride parade" compared to the big fat manly men, living their manly lives vicariously through football, behind him.  No, he has to go one step further to ruin everything that laissez the bon temps to rouler.

    This d*ck has the nerve to hand the (no pun intended) cashier some CASH.  The music screeches to a halt.  The clerk looks at the money like it's radioactive, and looks as the customer like the real douche that he is.  The man behind the register thinks to himself: "how DARE you preserve my profit margins and refuse to have every transaction of your life closely tracked by large financial institutions?  WTF is wrong with you?"  The guys behind Prepster McCashbastard look like they're about to beat him for delaying their plummet into paralyzing consumer debt for the moment it takes the cashier to do simple math and calculate change.  The cashier drops the change, condescendingly, into the slimy communist hands of the feeble excuse for a Real American™.

    Tennis boy walks towards the door, with manly football men shooting him deadly looks as he goes, and the spending orgy picks up the pace again.

    Surely every small store with a merchant account appreciates the message Visa is sending, right? 



  • Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.



  • This reminds me of the Mastercard ad where the zookeeper gets a cold and the elephant takes his credit card and buys him soup, a blanket, and some cold medicine.  It brags about the facts that you can use the RFID chip and that no signature is necessary for purchases under $25.  I get furious because the commercial is built upon the premise that someone can steal your card and never be challenged as long as purchases are under $25.  How is that a good thing?  Here's the commercial, for the uninformed.



  • Speaking of non-existent CC security I once got into a minor argument with a customer who asked why he had to show ID for his credit card purchase (no signature on the back), and I said it's because CCs have no inherent security. Needless to say ignorant in, ignorant out.



  • The video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhNZvpiWb1U

    This can look a bit homophobic but am not sure about it, The guy looks more like a "full of money dady's child spending time playing golf and squash with awfull clothing habits". It's proably the idea to say "common people have access to technology that rich don't have access to", or perhaps "pay even if you don't have money?"

     

    What amuse me in this is the fact the "paper money" transaction take 3 seconds more (from moment he hands out cash to moment he get his return) than sliding a visa card.... Er wait, all those visa reader always end their transaction by "processing...." ? Am not sure, but that all we see in the video. Sure the 10 seconds waiting for approval during a rush day was not to be shown, nor the 2-3 second to type in pin....



  • @Lingerance said:

    Speaking of non-existent CC security I once got into a minor argument with a customer who asked why he had to show ID for his credit card purchase (no signature on the back), and I said it's because CCs have no inherent security. Needless to say ignorant in, ignorant out.

    Cash has no inherent security either, why don't you require an ID for those purchases? And how would a signature on the back provide security in any case?



  • @Random832 said:

    Cash has no inherent security either, why don't you require an ID for those purchases? And how would a signature on the back provide security in any case?

    Because if you get your wallet stolen, it probably contains nothing more than 100$ unless you are ready to get stolen of more money. If you get your card stolen, user could use ut to your limit, which is probably around 2000$. And anyway, the merchant get the money for his selling, so at his point of view, everything is ok. If the card gets used, the merchant must check that the card is used by it's owner. Otherwise, is card is stolen, visa won't pay the merchant and the merchant lost money. In case of pin, typing in correct pin number grant merchant you are allowed to use card, so he gets his money. Otherwise, he must use the "signature" way and check signature is same as the one on CC, if both are equal, visa assume user is owner of card without further checkin of ID. Asking ID because there is no signature on card is then a normal operation to do, if you want visa to pay you your money as merchant!

     

     

     



  • @Lingerance said:

    Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.

    Same problem here... I miss read...

     

    I use a CC because 1/2 the time I don't have cash on me. But 99% of the time CC is slower than cash (unless the guy can't count or has exact change somewhere in his side pocket of his hard-to-get-to backpack inside the change bag which has been locked by a key in his car). But that commercial has a 2nd problem: Notice how nobody checks IDs, cares that this is the correct person, its the Identity Thief's best case scenario!

    So ladies and gents, if you want your identity stolen and thousands of dollars charged on your account, get The Visa Check Card!
     



  • @Lingerance said:

    Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.
    Those retailers are in a very real danger of having their contract with Visa or Mastercard revoked.  Both companies require credit cards to be accepted for any and all transactions, no matter how small, as a condition of accepting them in the first place.  Not accepting the card for any reason (including low transaction amount, efficiency concerns, power failure) constitutes a breach of contract on the part of the retailer.

    I wish I didn't know that.
     



  • @djork said:

    So there's an ad for Visa playing now, featuring the New Orleans Saints, and a bunch of their fans getting ready for the game.  They engage in all sorts of pre-game revelry, including the great American pastime: consumerism.  Fans are shown using their RFID-enabled cards and, yes, even their old outdated magnetic stripe cards to buy all sorts of sports-related implements to prepare for the rituals of worshiping professional sports.

    Now, this total a-hole shows up in the checkout line.  He's a smug looking guy with a pink shirt, popped collar, sweater tied around his neck, and he's buying tennis balls.  It's bad enough that he looks like he looks like he stepped out a "pride parade" compared to the big fat manly men, living their manly lives vicariously through football, behind him.  No, he has to go one step further to ruin everything that laissez the bon temps to rouler.

    This d*ck has the nerve to hand the (no pun intended) cashier some CASH.  The music screeches to a halt.  The clerk looks at the money like it's radioactive, and looks as the customer like the real douche that he is.  The man behind the register thinks to himself: "how DARE you preserve my profit margins and refuse to have every transaction of your life closely tracked by large financial institutions?  WTF is wrong with you?"  The guys behind Prepster McCashbastard look like they're about to beat him for delaying their plummet into paralyzing consumer debt for the moment it takes the cashier to do simple math and calculate change.  The cashier drops the change, condescendingly, into the slimy communist hands of the feeble excuse for a Real American™.

    Tennis boy walks towards the door, with manly football men shooting him deadly looks as he goes, and the spending orgy picks up the pace again.

    Surely every small store with a merchant account appreciates the message Visa is sending, right? 

     

    These ads have been bugging me for a while. I tend to use my debit card for everything so that it's easier for me to precisely track my purchases, however, I recognize that credit cards are often slower. You still usually have to wait for the transaction to clear and sign, and not only that, I've seen people held up for ten minutes and more while their identity is confirmed to prevent credit card fraud. This is in normal retail stores like EB Games (try buying a PlayStation 3 with a credit card and see how quickly the transaction goes through). I think that after all is said and done, cash is still king, with the next best thing being debit cards.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.

    Swiping a credit card is rarely slower than the old lady who counts out exact change (or waiting for the high school dropout cashier to make correct change for you).  I guess sometimes the old lady doesn't know which way to swipe her card...and that can get annoying.

    By far the worst is the idiot that pays with a check.  There's absolutely no reason to do this.  Takes longer than cash or card, still makes you just as trackable as the guy with the card.

    I never got peoples' obsession with 'being tracked' though.  Worked at a Kroger one summer and had to deal with a lot of asshats who didn't like the idea of their "Kroger Plus" cards.  OMFG, the CIA could use it to find out what kind of toilet paper you buy!  Sure you don't want to buy some tinfoil with that? 

    You don't even have to put real information on that thing.  Mine is still registered to one of the other guys I worked with there (and I still get employee discounts!).

    The worst was a guy who actually worked for the government, buying like $500 worth of stuff (which was all on sale).  Asked him if he had a card, and as soon as he said no, the dude behind him in line said "here, use mine" and swiped it himself.  Dude freaked out about it, but I didn't care.  that's MY tax money he'd be wasting by paying full price.  He ended up paying the full price even though there was no way I could remove the card without cancelling the order.  Made myself a nice $75 tip that day...



  • (try buying a PlayStation 3 with a credit card and see how quickly the transaction goes through)

    Hell, making any sort of large purchases with cash is going to get you accused of being a drug dealer.



  • @bstorer said:

    This reminds me of the Mastercard ad where the zookeeper gets a cold and the elephant takes his credit card and buys him soup, a blanket, and some cold medicine.  It brags about the facts that you can use the RFID chip and that no signature is necessary for purchases under $25.  I get furious because the commercial is built upon the premise that someone can steal your card and never be challenged as long as purchases are under $25.  How is that a good thing?  Here's the commercial, for the uninformed.


    Well, the signature is not a security feature, it seems to be largely ceremonial (And is totally done away with for online orders, replaced by reading those extra digits from the back of the card, an equally non-security feature)



  • @tchize said:

    What amuse me in this is the fact the "paper money" transaction take 3 seconds more (from moment he hands out cash to moment he get his return) than sliding a visa card.... Er wait, all those visa reader always end their transaction by "processing...." ? Am not sure, but that all we see in the video. Sure the 10 seconds waiting for approval during a rush day was not to be shown, nor the 2-3 second to type in pin....



    Or the 3 seconds to swip a second time when the first doesn't register, 3 seconds for a third time, 5 seconds to get the magic plastic bag (Does that actually do anything or is it just superstition?) and swipe the 4th time.



  • @bstorer said:

    This reminds me of the Mastercard ad where the zookeeper gets a cold and the elephant takes his credit card and buys him soup, a blanket, and some cold medicine.  It brags about the facts that you can use the RFID chip and that no signature is necessary for purchases under $25.  I get furious because the commercial is built upon the premise that someone can steal your card and never be challenged as long as purchases are under $25.  How is that a good thing?  Here's the commercial, for the uninformed.

     

    Nobody obtains a valid stolen credit card and uses it for under $25 in purchases.  You want to buy the most expensive things as quickly as possible. The more often you use the card outside of its normal shopping area, the more likely it is to get automatically flagged for review at the anti-fraud department of your bank.  That's why many stores don't bother with the signature for your $3 coffee.  Maybe 1% of my purchases have the clerk actually check the signature, anyway.

     

    To wit: http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/



  • @Random832 said:

    @Lingerance said:
    Speaking of non-existent CC security I once got into a minor argument with a customer who asked why he had to show ID for his credit card purchase (no signature on the back), and I said it's because CCs have no inherent security. Needless to say ignorant in, ignorant out.

    Cash has no inherent security either, why don't you require an ID for those purchases? And how would a signature on the back provide security in any case?

    There are huge, 200+ page PDFs of card acceptance policies available online at visa.com etc, if you really want to know.

    The idea is, the card holder signs the card as soon as they receive it.  Then, you can compare the signature on the card to that on the receipt.  If they match, you can be reasonably certain that the cardholder and the signer are one and the same.

    If you, as a merchant, are handed a card without a signature, you are required to ask for photo ID, and have the cardholder sign their credit card -- said photo ID *should* have a photo of the person *and* an image of their signature.  You match the photo on the card to the cardholder's face, match the name on the ID to that on the credit card, and match the signature on the ID to the new signature on the card.

     

    Interesting point:  The cardholder policy clearly states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is *expressly prohibited*, as it slows down transaction time -- the only time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an unsigned card.

    I have yet to find a retailer that actually complies with these policies.



  • @tchize said:

    @Random832 said:

    Cash has no inherent security either, why don't you require an ID for those purchases? And how would a signature on the back provide security in any case?

    Because if you get your wallet stolen, it probably contains nothing more than 100$ unless you are ready to get stolen of more money. If you get your card stolen, user could use ut to your limit, which is probably around 2000$. And anyway, the merchant get the money for his selling, so at his point of view, everything is ok. If the card gets used, the merchant must check that the card is used by it's owner. Otherwise, is card is stolen, visa won't pay the merchant and the merchant lost money. In case of pin, typing in correct pin number grant merchant you are allowed to use card, so he gets his money. Otherwise, he must use the "signature" way and check signature is same as the one on CC, if both are equal, visa assume user is owner of card without further checkin of ID. Asking ID because there is no signature on card is then a normal operation to do, if you want visa to pay you your money as merchant!

     



    Actually, the card must have a valid signature in order for the card to be accepted according to the Visa rules.

    http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf

    Interesting read regarding this subject on pages 28-29

    EDIT: Whoops, beat me to it.



  • @Pap said:

    Nobody obtains a valid stolen credit card and uses it for under $25 in purchases. You want to buy the most expensive things as quickly as possible.

    Tell that to the (I hesitate to call them human) people that stomped this guy's head in and put him in a coma to go to McDonalds and rent some movies with his credit card.  The "convenience" of not checking on purchases under a certain amount may be indirectly responsible for that kind of crime.



  • Having just obtained a stolen credit card, one would normally first try to use it at some place cheap ($2 purchase) to see if it works.  If not, you pay with cash and be on your way.  If it does work, you start a buying spree.  You can easily rack up several hundred dollars in DVDs at Besy Buy.

     

    But still, sadface at link :(



  • @Stephen Deken said:

    @Lingerance said:

    Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.
    Those retailers are in a very real danger of having their contract with Visa or Mastercard revoked.  Both companies require credit cards to be accepted for any and all transactions, no matter how small, as a condition of accepting them in the first place.  Not accepting the card for any reason (including low transaction amount, efficiency concerns, power failure) constitutes a breach of contract on the part of the retailer.

    I wish I didn't know that.
     


    I think you misunderstood, those retaillers do not have any such contracts with aforementionned companies for that very reason. Not every retailler must have them.



  • Believe it or not, I've actually had to sign when I paid using cash once. It was at a music store in Atlanta, which I'm sure has to deal with a lot of fraud. But it made zero sense. I was buying something like $100 worth of music supplies (cables, etc.). The only way it would make any sense is if the money was counterfeit and they thought having a signature would make it easier to find me. Of course, if I was using counterfeit money, I probably wouldn't have used my real name or signature, so I doubt it would have helped even in that case.


    Needless to say, I never bought anything else from them again.



  • @merreborn said:

    Interesting point:  The cardholder policy clearly states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is expressly prohibited, as it slows down transaction time -- the only time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an unsigned card.

    I have yet to find a retailer that actually complies with these policies.


    I can't understand for the like of me why that is, my signature is a hell of alot easier to forge than a photo ID with my name. That and my signature is about as consistant and legible as the spam I recieve in my inbox.



  • what is really bad is when certain companies get your account information and have you on a contract for paymnet, like Golds gym. Just google "golds gym" membership pricing       ...lots of consunmer websites show up where they bill your account after your contact ends and won't reply to customer inqueries about it... I just joined that gym yesterday, nearing the end of my application, when the associate found out that I wasn't planning on giving them my cc number, he upped the price a good bit, I still payed in cash, of which didn't make him happy at all. 



  • Realize that the entire underlying premise is that it is much easier to spend (and overspend) when all you do it swipe a card. Using the card abstracts away the fact that you are handing over money. It's much easier to get a grip on spending if you have to fork over greenbacks, and to see what's left, and how fast it goes away. The retailers don't want you thinking about spending, they just want you to spend. so anything that can expedite the removal of your money from you is in their best interest. The guy paying cash, well they don't like him because he actually can see his money leave his pocket, think about it, and reign in the spending.

     

     



  • @unklegwar said:

    Realize that the entire underlying premise is that it is much easier to spend (and overspend) when all you do it swipe a card. Using the card abstracts away the fact that you are handing over money. It's much easier to get a grip on spending if you have to fork over greenbacks, and to see what's left, and how fast it goes away. The retailers don't want you thinking about spending, they just want you to spend. so anything that can expedite the removal of your money from you is in their best interest. The guy paying cash, well they don't like him because he actually can see his money leave his pocket, think about it, and reign in the spending.

    Smart people still know how to keep track of their budget wen using credit cards.  It seems to me like a stupid person would still be stupid enough to waste cash when they had it, so I'm not sure there's much to be gained by telling the stupid guy which form of payment to use...

    Now, if the stupid guy is using a credit card, well that's just easy money right there.  He buys more than he can afford, fails to pay the bills, so you reposess everything he owns.  Profit. 

    There's no incentive to encouraging stupid people to use a check/debit card though, other than the ridiculous fees that merchants have to pay for each transaction.  And those fees are there regardless of how smart or responsible the end user is.



  • bah, i always use my debit card, and its a hell of a lot faster then paying in cash. And besides cash is annoying anyway.
    And i really DO get annoyed by some ass who is counting off coins to the cashier.

    Pinning (as its called here) used to cost money under a certain amount and wasn't always possible, but since 2002ish hardly any shop doesnt have a pin device. hell even at conventions and fairs you can pay with your debit card, via wireless pinning devices.

    And about the creditcards, public creditcard  security isn't to make it more secure, its to let the customer and the shop owner think its more secure. And the backend security devices are a joke too, there is no real security, CSC is a joke, and the normal "point" system (don't know how its really called) is also pretty much useless. (it tries to detect patterns and notices when those don't match. like talked about above)

    There is 3DS though, although i'm not sure how it works, it was supposed to be more secure though. 

     

    Thinking about it however, the autograph might not be for security, but for getting a few extra laws involved when the card is used by a thief. I'm totally not certain about this, but by using a credit card the thief might only be  guilty of theft and stealing more money from you via that creditcard. However when your signature is on it, and the general agreement is made that that card represents you. It might also make the thief guilty of identity theft.  Totally not certain about it however, and i'm certainly not a lawyer :)



  • @tchize said:

    @Random832 said:

    Cash has no inherent security either, why don't you require an ID for those purchases? And how would a signature on the back provide security in any case?

    Because if you get your wallet stolen, it probably contains nothing more than 100$ unless you are ready to get stolen of more money.

     

    You're thinking from the wrong end. Merchants don't care about your money being stolen. Merchants care that you might dispute the charge to your credit card, and the credit company will mark the card as stolen and take the money back from them, the merchant. Credit companies never accept responsibility for the insecurity of their systems - they just pass on the costs. Since these days consumers are unwilling to accept the costs, they're passed to the merchant instead.

    Merchants don't require ID for cash purchases because nobody can take the cash away from them (unless it's counterfeit or something, but that's rare).



  • @Lingerance said:

    @Stephen Deken said:

    @Lingerance said:

    Some places here will actually refuse credit cards or debit because they slow down the line, which is true in most cases (I've had the misfortune of working retail for 2 years). Also I misread visa for vista on my first read through, totally confusing.
    Those retailers are in a very real danger of having their contract with Visa or Mastercard revoked.  Both companies require credit cards to be accepted for any and all transactions, no matter how small, as a condition of accepting them in the first place.  Not accepting the card for any reason (including low transaction amount, efficiency concerns, power failure) constitutes a breach of contract on the part of the retailer.

    I wish I didn't know that.
     


    I think you misunderstood, those retaillers do not have any such contracts with aforementionned companies for that very reason. Not every retailler must have them.

    More precisely, almost nobody does - only the very largest merchants will have contracts directly with Mastercard, VISA, and the other credit companies. Most merchants just have one single contract with a broker, who processes their card transactions and passes them on to the relevant credit company. They do this partly because it means they only need one contract instead of three or four (with all the major credit companies), and mostly because the brokers give better rates on low-volume transactions.

    Different brokers have different contracts. The contracts with the obnoxious "do our marketing for us" clauses are limited to merchants who don't use brokers, and brokers who are too small to dictate their own contract terms. The large brokers carry too many transactions for the credit companies to risk annoying them.



  • @merreborn said:

    Interesting point: The cardholder policy clearly states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is expressly prohibited, as it slows down transaction time -- the only time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an unsigned card.

    I'll have to locate the exact part that states that and print it out - there's one Rocky Rococo's in a nearby shopping mall food court where they insist on seeing a photo ID when using a credit card (even though my card is signed) and I'd very much like to challenge that "policy" of theirs (a policy which I have never encountered anywhere else, including elsewhere in same food court and even other Rocky's in other locations).



  • @Quietust said:

    I'll have to locate the exact part that states that and print it out - there's one Rocky Rococo's in a nearby shopping mall food court where they insist on seeing a photo ID when using a credit card (even though my card is signed) and I'd very much like to challenge that "policy" of theirs (a policy which I have never encountered anywhere else, including elsewhere in same food court and even other Rocky's in other locations).


    I'm impressed when the cashiers even bother to look at my signature, let alone compare it to the card. I wish more places would check ideas to see it's actually me using my card. (Maybe not for burgers or whatever Rocky sells, but for bigger purchases I'd want them to check)



  • @Quietust said:

    @merreborn said:
    Interesting point: The cardholder policy clearly states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is expressly prohibited, as it slows down transaction time -- the only time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an unsigned card.

    I'll have to locate the exact part that states that and print it out - there's one Rocky Rococo's in a nearby shopping mall food court where they insist on seeing a photo ID when using a credit card (even though my card is signed) and I'd very much like to challenge that "policy" of theirs (a policy which I have never encountered anywhere else, including elsewhere in same food court and even other Rocky's in other locations).

    Unless the store happens to be owned by VISA, it's not their policy, so it probably doesn't apply to them. 



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    @Quietust said:
    I'll have to locate the exact part that states that and print it out - there's one Rocky Rococo's in a nearby shopping mall food court where they insist on seeing a photo ID when using a credit card (even though my card is signed) and I'd very much like to challenge that "policy" of theirs (a policy which I have never encountered anywhere else, including elsewhere in same food court and even other Rocky's in other locations).


    I'm impressed when the cashiers even bother to look at my signature, let alone compare it to the card. I wish more places would check ideas to see it's actually me using my card. (Maybe not for burgers or whatever Rocky sells, but for bigger purchases I'd want them to check)

    You do understand that if i had your card i could first look at your signature and then sign that, right? 



  • @stratos said:

    You do understand that if i had your card i could first look at your signature and then sign that, right? 



    Of course, the signature provides almost no protection. But if the cashiers can't be bothered to do that much, they're not going to bother to check ID.



  • There's another one that uses the song "Powerhouse" - most frequently heard in Looney Tunes assembly-line scenes, which wikipedia claims was "staged in a manner seemingly intended to be reminiscent of the song’s cartoon uses." The WTF there is that the ad has completely missed the point of the cartoons - those generally were about how bad it was to try to fit people into an assembly line like cogs in a machine.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @merreborn said:

    Interesting point:  The cardholder policy clearly states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is expressly prohibited, as it slows down transaction time -- the only time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an unsigned card.

    I have yet to find a retailer that actually complies with these policies.


    I can't understand for the like of me why that is, my signature is a hell of alot easier to forge than a photo ID with my name. That and my signature is about as consistant and legible as the spam I recieve in my inbox.

     Convenience.  Visa doesn't want you to have to do anything beyond signing the receipt.  They want you to think that using your credit card is quick, easy, and secure.  They see asking for ID as a barrier to convenience.

     

    @asuffield said:

    @Quietust said:

    [quote
    user="merreborn"]Interesting point: The cardholder policy clearly
    states that:

    1. Signing "SEE ID" or "ASK FOR ID" does not constitute a valid
      signature, and if presented such a card, you are to go through the
      above card-signing process; you cannot accept the card until it's been
      properly signed.
    2. Asking for ID when presented with a properly signed card is
      expressly prohibited, as it slows down transaction time -- the only
      time you're alowed to ask for ID is when you've been presented with an
      unsigned card.

    I'll have to locate the exact part that states that and print it out -
    there's one Rocky Rococo's in a nearby shopping mall food court where
    they insist on seeing a photo ID when using a credit card (even though
    my card is signed) and I'd very much like to challenge that "policy" of
    theirs (a policy which I have never encountered anywhere else,
    including elsewhere in same food court and even other Rocky's in other
    locations).

    Unless the store happens to be owned by VISA, it's not their policy, so it probably doesn't apply to them. 

    [/quote]

    Visa's card acceptance policies apply to every merchant that wants to receive payments from Visa cards.  Visa can and will revoke a merchant's account for failure to comply with said policies.  It seems pretty clear that Visa's not really doing much to enforce these particular policies, however. I'd imagine they're afraid of backlash.
     


     



  • @merreborn said:

    Visa's card acceptance policies apply to every merchant that wants to receive payments from Visa cards.

    No they don't.

     

    Visa can and will revoke a merchant's account for failure to comply with said policies.

    Most merchants who accept visa cards do not have an account with visa.



  • @stratos said:

    Thinking about it however, the autograph might not be for security, but for getting a few extra laws involved when the card is used by a thief. I'm totally not certain about this, but by using a credit card the thief might only be  guilty of theft and stealing more money from you via that creditcard. However when your signature is on it, and the general agreement is made that that card represents you. It might also make the thief guilty of identity theft.  Totally not certain about it however, and i'm certainly not a lawyer :)

    I've been told by a cashier that without a signature, all they can be charged with is "accepting stolen goods," while using a signed card would cause greater charges.  Some cashiers actually do their job, but the vast majority (including myself) don't. 



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @stratos said:

    Thinking about it however, the autograph might not be for security, but for getting a few extra laws involved when the card is used by a thief. I'm totally not certain about this, but by using a credit card the thief might only be  guilty of theft and stealing more money from you via that creditcard. However when your signature is on it, and the general agreement is made that that card represents you. It might also make the thief guilty of identity theft.  Totally not certain about it however, and i'm certainly not a lawyer :)

    I've been told by a cashier that without a signature, all they can be charged with is "accepting stolen goods," while using a signed card would cause greater charges.  Some cashiers actually do their job, but the vast majority (including myself) don't. 

    I realized my language was a bit cloudy.  If someone STEALS an UNSIGNED CARD, and USES it, all they can be charged with is "accepting stolen goods."  If someone STEALS a SIGNED card and USES it, they can be charged with greater things, like credit card fraud. 

    So the signing of your card gives you a slight bump in security, but only for namby-pamby thieves.  I think most thieves would use a stolen card, signed or not.  It helps the police to prosecute if you signed your card.  This may only be true in my Ohio, but I think most credit card laws are nationwide, in America.  Also, keep in mind, this was a clerk telling me this, not a lawyer, so it could be slightly off.



  • My card is signed "CHECK ID". In the last year, exactly one person has asked me to see ID. I think three have actually checked it. And then you have places like target where you just slip the card into a slot. One would think that they would try and show signatures to compare for the cashier, but eh.



  • @unklegwar said:

    Realize that the entire underlying premise is that it is much easier to spend (and overspend) when all you do it swipe a card. Using the card abstracts away the fact that you are handing over money. It's much easier to get a grip on spending if you have to fork over greenbacks, and to see what's left, and how fast it goes away. The retailers don't want you thinking about spending, they just want you to spend. so anything that can expedite the removal of your money from you is in their best interest. The guy paying cash, well they don't like him because he actually can see his money leave his pocket, think about it, and reign in the spending.

    Agree. When I'm trying to keep to a budget, I pick $arbitrary_day as the start of a week, draw out x £s, and that is how much money I have for the week. (I'm a student so I only actually get PAID once a term)

    @vt_mruhlin said:

    Smart people still know how to keep track of their budget wen using
    credit cards.  It seems to me like a stupid person would still be
    stupid enough to waste cash when they had it, so I'm not sure there's
    much to be gained by telling the stupid guy which form of payment to
    use...

    When I'm spending amounts like £13.26 in the supermarket one day, £3.37 for lunch the next day, £2.80 in the bar that evening, etc etc, keeping track of, and remembering, the exact amount gets to be a pain. It's easier with cash in my wallet. I have better things to think about than how much I've been spending.



  • @m0ffx said:

    When I'm spending amounts like £13.26 in the supermarket one day, £3.37 for lunch the next day, £2.80 in the bar that evening, etc etc, keeping track of, and remembering, the exact amount gets to be a pain. It's easier with cash in my wallet. I have better things to think about than how much I've been spending.



    On the other hand with cash I can get to the end of the week and have no idea how exactly I managed to spend $X. With credit cards I can go back and see I spend $10 here, and $20 there...



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    @m0ffx said:

    When I'm spending amounts like £13.26 in the supermarket one day, £3.37 for lunch the next day, £2.80 in the bar that evening, etc etc, keeping track of, and remembering, the exact amount gets to be a pain. It's easier with cash in my wallet. I have better things to think about than how much I've been spending.



    On the other hand with cash I can get to the end of the week and have no idea how exactly I managed to spend $X. With credit cards I can go back and see I spend $10 here, and $20 there...

    actually i can budget in my head to within about 30 cents accuracy everything i've spent since my last deposit. this is with both cash and my check card (which i refuse to swipe as credit... ever). Now checks on the other hand... with their delays and my seldom ever using them... i've gotten into some hot water when a check was cashed a month and a half after i drafted it (and had gone out of my budget as "where'd this money come from" or whatever) ... and it bounced. I entered a world of pain because of that one check bouncing. 



  • @GeneWitch said:

    my check card (which i refuse to swipe as credit... ever).

    Why?  swiping as credit is quicker and you don't have to put in the PIN.  Plus some banks charge you like fifty cents to run your check card as a debit. 

    I can understand if you want to be able to say "that was swiped as credit!  it must be fraudulent" but that won't hold up in court.  You could show (with many years of only swiping as debit) that there is a very low likelihood that you swiped as credit, but you cannot prove that a credit swipe was fraudulent just because you never swipe as credit.  



  • @belgariontheking said:

    swiping as credit is quicker and you don't have to put in the PIN.  Plus some banks charge you like fifty cents to run your check card as a debit. 

    I can understand if you want to be able to say "that was swiped as credit!  it must be fraudulent" but that won't hold up in court.  You could show (with many years of only swiping as debit) that there is a very low likelihood that you swiped as credit, but you cannot prove that a credit swipe was fraudulent just because you never swipe as credit.  

    I don't understand any of that. I assume this is a different country thing, here in the UK you just use your card, and if it's a debit card it deducts from your bank account, and if it's a credit card it adds to your bill for the end of the month. Either way you have to put in your PIN. Are you saying you have one card attached to both a bank account and a credit bill? How does that work?

    I personally refuse to use a credit card, because if I can't afford something I need then I should be taking out a loan, not using a 300%/month card.



  • When I swipe my debit card at the grocery store, I get an option:  debit or credit. 

    Credit just goes through, and about half the time I don't even have to sign.

    Debit requires me to put my PIN in, but gives me the option of getting cash back in addition to paying for the groceries.  It's easy to see why that requires the PIN whereas running it as credit does not require the PIN.

    I don't get this option at all places.  I definitely don't get it at restaurants. 


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @belgariontheking said:

    [...] but gives me the option of getting cash back in addition to paying for the groceries. 

    I don't get this option at all places.  I definitely don't get it at restaurants. 

    It's a 'service' some places use that enables them to (legitimately) remove cash from the premises, without paying large amounts for it. Entirely optional.

    Supermarkets in the UK do this. It reduces their cash handling costs. However it can (should) only be done on debit cards.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    When I swipe my debit card at the grocery store, I get an option:  debit or credit. 

    Credit just goes through, and about half the time I don't even have to sign.

    Debit requires me to put my PIN in, but gives me the option of getting cash back in addition to paying for the groceries.  It's easy to see why that requires the PIN whereas running it as credit does not require the PIN.

    I don't get this option at all places.  I definitely don't get it at restaurants. 

    Wait... you find it quicker to have someone print you a receipt and sign it, than to enter 4 numbers and press ok?

    ...It could just be me, but I know which one I prefer. 



  • @Thief^ said:

    I personally refuse to use a credit card, because if I can't afford something I need then I should be taking out a loan, not using a 300%/month card.

    It might be a difference in the credit-card laws or something, but here in the US, (1) the worst rate I've ever seen on a credit card was 29.9% per year, and (2) you don't pay interest unless you fail to pay off the card's balance at the end of the monthly billing cycle. Yes, you can use a credit card as a high-rate loan, but you can also use it as a way to avoid carrying large amounts of cash around.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Carnildo said:

    @Thief^ said:

    I personally refuse to use a credit card, because if I can't afford something I need then I should be taking out a loan, not using a 300%/month card.

    It might be a difference in the credit-card laws or something, but here in the US, (1) the worst rate I've ever seen on a credit card was 29.9% per year, and (2) you don't pay interest unless you fail to pay off the card's balance at the end of the monthly billing cycle. Yes, you can use a credit card as a high-rate loan, but you can also use it as a way to avoid carrying large amounts of cash around.

    In the UK, the worst CC rate is from the sub-prime suppliers such as Vanquis - 39.9% APR 'typical,' meaning there will be people who get charged more than this. Such as the 59.9% talked about here on MSN

    But as in your point 2, it only gets charged if you fail to pay off the entire monthly bill. Typical credit limit is £250.

     

    For higher APR's you need to look at 'doorstep lending' where rates of 900% APR have been cited.
     



  • @PJH said:

    For higher APR's you need to look at 'doorstep lending' where rates of 900% APR have been cited.
     

    Around here, that's called "payday lending" or "loan sharking", and is entirely unrelated to the credit-card industry.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.