🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pat" <pat@peace4life.com> wrote in message 
news:20090607145708.B2DD94E4A5@poisonous.dizum.com...
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
> - Marie Johnson, Denver
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
> store owner doesn't agree.
>
>
Absolutely correct. 

It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection for you
- there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather the clerks make
sure I am whoI say I am.
xxxxo
-------------------------------------
Pat wrote:


> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443

> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license
> when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can
> they?
> � Marie Johnson, Denver 

> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard. 

> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must
> accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if
> the
> store owner doesn't agree.








##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.spendwize.com http://www.spendwize.com/groups/
Consumer News and Discussions Platform of the Net
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup - 
misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,co.denver.general -  messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

On 07 Jun 2009 16:38:23 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com
(spendwize.com) wrote:

>It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection for you
>- there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather the clerks make
>sure I am whoI say I am.

It's a protection for *them*.  You're not protected by giving the
cashier even more information about you.  That said, much too much is
made about this here.  

krw wrote
> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

> It's a protection for *them*.

Its protection for both partys.

> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately that keeps
the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall if everyone does that.

> That said, much too much is made about this here.

Pat wrote:
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license
> when I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it.
> Can they? - Marie Johnson, Denver
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must
> accept the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer
> immediately if the store owner doesn't agree.

And nothing will happen when you 'report' that. 

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 04:58:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>krw wrote
>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>Its protection for both partys.

Wrong, as usual, Ron.

>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>Wrong. 

No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.

>You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately that keeps
>the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall if everyone does that.

Dumb as a stump, too.

>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>

krw wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

>>> It's a protection for *them*.

>> Its protection for both partys.

> Wrong, as usual, Ron.

How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

>> Wrong.

> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.

How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>> to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately
>> that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall
>> if everyone does that.

> Dumb as a stump, too.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ? 

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:17:36 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>krw wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> krw wrote
>>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>>> Its protection for both partys.
>
>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

That you're wrong, Ronnie?  All one has to do is hang out here for a
day and that fact becomes evident.  The fact is that it is *NO*
protection for you and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any
information.

>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

It's pretty obvious to anyone but a Usenet troll and welfare queen,
Ronnie.

>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>>> to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately
>>> that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall
>>> if everyone does that.
>
>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.

>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ? 

I made a simple comment that it really isn't as important as people
make it, and you puff it up even more with your nonsensical blather.
Who's the troll here, Ronnie?  Wanna vote?

krw wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.

>>>> Its protection for both partys.

>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.

>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

> That you're wrong, Ronnie?

Both of the claims above, fuckwit.

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you

Obvious lie if your card is stolen.

> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.

You aint giving anyone any information if they just check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.

>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

>>>> Wrong.

>>> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.

>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.


<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.

>>> Dumb as a stump, too.

>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.

Obvious lie.

>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.

>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?


<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs> 

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:49:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>krw wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> krw wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>
>>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
>> That you're wrong, Ronnie?
>
>Both of the claims above, fuckwit.

You are *clearly* wrong, so that makes you thrice wrong here.
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
>> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you
>
>Obvious lie if your card is stolen.

You're too stupid for words.

>> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.
>
>You aint giving anyone any information if they just check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.

They now have all the other information on the ID too, stupid Ronnie.
Can yo say Identity theft?  I knew you couldn't.

>>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>>>> Wrong.
>
>>>> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.
>
>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

Perfect self analysis, stupid Ronnie.

>>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.
>
>>>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
>
>Obvious lie.

You are an obvious liar, yes.

>>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs> 

You repeat yourself a lot, huh stupid Ronnie.

>Heh. You think these pimply-faced, minimum-wage punks are putting any
>effort at all into verifying that the person presenting the card is in
>fact the owner of that card? These droids are simply going through the
>motions. They NEVER check signatures, and when they look at my
>driver's license their eyes don't even focus. 

There have been a few "undercover stings" by reporters checking to
see how much checking is actually done on ID.  The result was
"essentially none".  Nobody objected to any of these:

One guy's credit card identified him as something like "First Baptist
Church of San Francisco", and his driver's license had a matching
name and a picture of the church building on it.

One guy (black, bald, over 300 pounds) presented a credit card with
the name "Britney Spears", and the driver's license name match and
the picture was a nude photo of a supermodel.

One guy presented a credit card with some female name, his driver's
license showed a different female name and a picture of someone in
a gorilla suit.

One guy presented a credit card with the name "John VOID", and
his driver's license clearly had VOID stamped over it, although the
name was something else entirely.  

One 10-year old boy, wearing nothing but a diaper and made up to
look much younger, presented a credit card to buy beer.  His driver's
license showed a picture of a senior citizen.  He got his beer.
For this one, they had the parents (one of whom was also the store
owner) watching from outside the store on a video monitor, they
were shocked, and all hell broke out afterwards.

Scott in SoCal wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

>>> It's a protection for *them*.

>> Its protection for both partys.

>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

>> Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used.

> Heh. You think these pimply-faced, minimum-wage punks
> are putting any effort at all into verifying that the person
> presenting the card is in fact the owner of that card?

Plenty of them do.

> These droids are simply going through the motions. They NEVER check signatures,

I've had them do that.

> and when they look at my driver's license their eyes don't even focus.

You wouldnt know whether they do or not.

> My license photo has a picture of me with a moustache that I shaved
> off a couple of years ago, my hair is a completely different length,
> and I wear glasses IRL but don't have them on in the photograph.

Its obvious enough when that sort of thing has happened.

> Not once has a store clerk even given either my license or me a
> second glance. I bet I could go over to Santa Ana and get a fake
> DL with Obama's picture on it and these droids wouldn't even notice.

You'd lose your bet with plenty of them.

> If a thief steals your wallet, they not only get your
> credit card but they get your driver's license, as well.

Pity that the photo doesnt match.

> Your protection from fraudulent use of your stolen card is now almost ZERO.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. 

krw wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>>>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

>>>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.

>>>>>> Its protection for both partys.

>>>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.

>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

>>> That you're wrong, Ronnie?

>> Both of the claims above, fuckwit.

> You are *clearly* wrong, so that makes you thrice wrong here.

How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.

>> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you

>> Obvious lie if your card is stolen.

> You're too stupid for words.

How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.

>>> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.

>> You aint giving anyone any information if they just
>> check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.

> They now have all the other information on the ID too,

Like hell they do if they just compare the photo
with the person and check that the names match.

> Can yo say Identity theft?  I knew you couldn't.

How odd that no one has ever stolen my identity, fuckwit.

>>>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

>>>>>> Wrong.

>>>>> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.

>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.

>>>>> Dumb as a stump, too.

>>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.

>> Obvious lie.

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.

>>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

"Pat" <pat@peace4life.com> wrote in message 
news:20090607145708.B2DD94E4A5@poisonous.dizum.com...
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
> - Marie Johnson, Denver
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
> store owner doesn't agree.

mine is signed C ID so i expect them to ask.