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