"That violates the agreement. You're not supposed to do that."
He still took my money - but I'd believed him. Having repeated that story to a number of people, it occurred to me that I'd never bothered to look this up.
Well, according to VISA, we're not supposed to do that.
From their instructions to merchants:
If the card has a “See ID” in place of a signature…
1. Request a signature. Ask the cardholder to sign the card and provide current government identification, such as a driver's license or passport (if local law permits).
2. Check the signature. Be sure that the signature on the card matches the one on the transaction receipt and the additional identification.
If the signatures appear reasonably the same and the authorization request is approved, go ahead and complete the transaction.
If a merchant followed these guidelines for a "See ID" card, your card would actually be less secure - since they would ask whoever has the card to sign it right there.
There's still a case for a person to sign their card AND put "See ID," but not signing it isn't doesn't seem to be an option.
1 comment:
hm. a coupla problems with what visa says.
1. the vendor is also supposed to *actually see i.d.* when the card is signed. so if clem is using tony's card illicitly, and hauls out his 'clem' i.d. -- or says 'whoops. forgot my i.d.', is the vendor authorized in some way to act as the credit card fraud police, and snag the card?
2. is requiring the vendor to get us to sign our cards not, in fact, asking the vendor to act as an agent of visa? for which privilege the vendor is paying *visa* 1-3% for the privilege?
my card says 'see id' in sharpie so many times that my actual signature would neither fit, nor establish its priority over 'see i.d.' even if it did.
sincerely,
n's aunt thorn
Post a Comment