CC Fraud - Is anyone asking for ID or verifying signature when making on site purchases?

[DollyLama]

That is why I use the cards the most that I can set low money transactions alerts. I'm notified of $4.27 charge within 15 seconds on my cellphone when I'm in store, shopping online, drive thru. 

[FlaDude]

It's about time merchants stopped asking for ID. According to Visa and Mastercard, at least, merchants are free to ask for ID but can't require it. By the merchant agreement, the merchant has to make the sale/charge even if the customer does not provide ID. What's the point of asking for something that's not required? Here's a page that summarizes the card network policies:

https://www.thebalance.com/no-id-required-for-credit-card-purchases-3974686#:~:text=In%20most%20inst...

While I certainly try to protect my credit cards, I don't lose any sleep over fraudulent use. That's not my problem, it's the card issuer's problem. Over the past 40 years or so, my family and I have had cards or numbers compromised dozens of times. It's never cost me more than the time for a phone call.

[Anonymous]

---

@Trudy wrote:

Right. It seems like the 1st or at least next line of defense against fraud is the old school method....ask for ID. 

You know, since fraud is skyrocketing and all  I know a lot of fraud is online but ripe for in store purchases when there's no identity verification. I'm never offended if I'm asked and dont' have it (I think I always do).  I feel like you're protecting me even if I can't buy what I want at the moment because I failed to travel there with ID. 

"Thank you Mr/Ms store.  I'll be back."

---

Speaking in terms of retail, it can get quite dicey when aking for ID on CC transactions. Some comply with no issues because they too want the added verification, others can pull quite a scene. And those are the reasons some stores (I know of) that stopped asking, as it was seen as intrusive and accusatory.  Just process the transaction was their motto, and I beleive that it was left at the doorstep of the card issuers to deal with. As well as the issue touched upon by Iced about some employees doing the very thing they wee supposed to guard against.

I can understand a less hands on approach in the current situation, so no prompts for signature.I know that it usaully was on transaction over $50, but it seems not to be the case anymore. Maybe it's $100 now? TBH, I wish they would just go to NFC because it seems like every time I go this certain store their chip reader malfuntions, at least on my Freedom card. And am forced to use the mag stripe. I keep asking, "don't you have tap and pay like every other place"? lol

Even if they wee to ask for PIN witht the chip reader, it's added hands on equipment that i think they're trying to minimize right now. Surely with technology we have today proper security can be implemented, though nothing is every truly secure if someone wants it bad enough.

Which touches on a subject about how in the old days criminal were seen as dumb and stole because they didn't haev the means to earn it honestly. Definite 180 to the criminals of today who need sophisticated equipment and the intelligence to operate it,as well as hacking skills.

So i wonder why do these people not have jobs making an honest living?

@iced wrote:

I once met an old fellow who still insisted on calling up his banker on the phone to process transactions. I would ask why and he would give me lines like "you can't trust computers" and "the phone is more secure" and, perhaps most insane, "there's just something nice about working with an actual human".

I surmised he simply didn't know any better and/or feared technology.

---

Interesting, you'd think this "older" gentleman would of heard about a thing called wire tapping. And even the Pentagon wasn't immune to it. 

[iced]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Which touches on a subject about how in the old days criminal were seen as dumb and stole because they didn't haev the means to earn it honestly. Definite 180 to the criminals of today who need sophisticated equipment and the intelligence to operate it,as well as hacking skills.

So i wonder why do these people not have jobs making an honest living?

It's two different circles of criminals, and both still exist. There's still the "dumb" criminals who steal to make ends meet, and their lives are even worse with new technology that thwarts many of their old efforts. The other side are the opportunistic criminals who can take advantage of new technology to steal easily. Embezzlement used to be a difficult, dangerous thing, requiring insider access and some coordination. Now, any kid who knows the right dark web site can download tools to break into systems remotely to set up extortion or laundering opportunities.

Perhaps most importantly for the second circle of criminals, there's legal immunity in their actions in many cases. Physically stealing something is a crime pretty much everywhere, and you will have the added problem of fleeing to a country with no extradition before your're caught. The technie criminals, however, can set up operations in a place like Russia, extort the world over, and there's absolutely NOTHING anyone here or in most countries can do about it. I've caught British and Polish hackers red-handed in the past of stealing real money and doing real financial damage to businesses, but they were using systems in Italy to do it, so LE had to turn to them. The Italian authorities' response was that breaking in and stealing money isn't a crime there, thanks for playing anyway. Look at how difficult it's been to get Julian Assange for his crimes.