I've left the back of my credit-card unsigned for 2+ years, and in that entire time, and north of 500+ transactions with a signature, I've been asked for identification less than 10 times.
I wonder if there has been a single person challenged on a signature in the last 5+ years with a credit card if they even made the slightest attempt to sign in a fashion similar to what's on the back of the card?
retailers aren't supposed to accept unsigned cards though. And they can even force you to sign the card before they accept it. They are also not allowed to ask for Identification if your signature matches the back of the card (customer can complain to Visa/MC etc if they are asked). This is why the 'SEE ID' stuff is not really recommended. IT all comes back to fraud prevention though, and the point of the signature is not to protect you, but to protect the merchant in case you file a charge-back saying that you didn't actually authorize the purchase.
None of my cards are signed and the merchant never checks the back of the card or asks for ID after signing. In a lot of cases AMEX doesn't even require signatures for purchases.
As a consumer that uses credit cards, I don't think of this as much of a problem. All the credit cards I've used have 0 liability for fraud. It's a nuisance if my card is used fraudulently because I'll be issued a new card with a new card number, but disputing and getting a fraudulent charge removed has never been difficult. In fact, in a lot of cases, the bank is proactive about trying to identify those up front and contacts me.
If someone steals your chip+pin card and your pin you will probably be considered negligent by the bank. If they steal your credit card and fake your signature you will probably have zero liability.
Depending on how the liability is defined, I might consider purposefully burning out my chip-and-pin so it falls back to signature authorization. I'm not interested in allowing the credit industry pulling a bait-and-switch on me by promising a new secure system that also shifts liability to me, when the new system is horribly insecure. Luckily, since I live in the US, it looks like they are requiring online auth, so I just need to make sure this includes online pin auth.
Tip from my father, who switched from cash to almost all credit cards at POS: write "Photo ID Req." in permanent marker in the signature area. And, hey, one time when he sent me in to BBQ joint for some takeout with his card the cashier did look, but I was able to show my ID and make a plausible case for being his eldest son ^_^.
The lesson from your story is that "See ID" doesn't work. Indeed, these are the merchant guidelines from Visa:
In the US, some customers write “See ID” or “Ask for ID” in the signature panel,
thinking that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature
is not on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals
often don’t take the time to practice signatures. They use cards as quickly as possible after a theft and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you not to look at the back of the card and compare signatures; they may even have access to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting. In this situation, follow recommended steps listed above under Unsigned Cards.
It makes even more sense given this guideline, from the same handbook:
When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? [M]erchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot as part of their regular
card acceptance procedures refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID.
I struggle to understand the security rationale behind that advice - what is more likely - Thief spends 60-90 seconds practicing the signature on the card, or Thief acquires government ID that matches name on the card.
Regardless - any time I'm making a large purchase (even with a signed card), you can be certain they scrutinize my government ID - I've never seen a retailer who has ever paid attention to the rules that stipulate you cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance.
If it were a meaningful amount of money, it's more likely the criminal would clone the card onto one with their own name on it.
It's purely a branding rationale. For some people, being "grilled like a potential criminal" by a checker would be enough for them to stop using the card or not shop at that store. Either way, it's a negative association between that merchant and that card for that kind of customer. Card networks have fantastic anti-fraud algorithms that are way more reliable than a bored teen checker.
Whenever a checker takes care to examine my credit card I make a point of thanking them for their diligence, as long as its within reason they're doing everyone a favor but the criminals.
I worked retail thru high school and college. Although some people were thankful I'd checked their ID, the majority were annoyed. N=1 and all that, but I imagine this was well-studied by the credit card companies - they're not in the business of losing money.
Problem is the card is not valid unless signed. An attentive merchant will insist on the card being signed. This has only happened to me a couple of times but still.
In California, Singapore, British Columbia - I've never had any problem with having an unsigned card, other than being asked for ID a handful of times.
I know people who do that, and they tell me that most merchants don't actually ask for ID. Which is surprising, since the merchant bears the pain in the case of fraud.
Except the person working the cash register isn't the merchant -- they are an employee, who isn't really worried about their job because they've only been there for a few months, and replaced a previous employee that was there for less than a year.
I guess in 99% of cases they see the transaction is not a fraud.
This is, by the way, the reason software development is hard - if you were to approach this problem the way typical software requirements are defined, you'd only piss the clerks off. In real life, people dynamically adjust their compliance with procedures to run the common case with minimum effort and improvise if something unexpected happens.
Considering at this point the vast majority of my CC usage never requires the card leave my possession, I can't imagine anything the card says being a major impediment.
The chip+signature card is pretty annoying when traveling. While visiting New Zealand (where local cards are all chip+PIN) with a U.S. chip+signature card, the majority of clerks actually request to see the card and visually inspect the signature. Also, I can’t use the cheapest petrol stations because they all require PIN.
Comments
"signature validation "
I've left the back of my credit-card unsigned for 2+ years, and in that entire time, and north of 500+ transactions with a signature, I've been asked for identification less than 10 times.
I wonder if there has been a single person challenged on a signature in the last 5+ years with a credit card if they even made the slightest attempt to sign in a fashion similar to what's on the back of the card?
retailers aren't supposed to accept unsigned cards though. And they can even force you to sign the card before they accept it. They are also not allowed to ask for Identification if your signature matches the back of the card (customer can complain to Visa/MC etc if they are asked). This is why the 'SEE ID' stuff is not really recommended. IT all comes back to fraud prevention though, and the point of the signature is not to protect you, but to protect the merchant in case you file a charge-back saying that you didn't actually authorize the purchase.
None of my cards are signed and the merchant never checks the back of the card or asks for ID after signing. In a lot of cases AMEX doesn't even require signatures for purchases.
As a consumer that uses credit cards, I don't think of this as much of a problem. All the credit cards I've used have 0 liability for fraud. It's a nuisance if my card is used fraudulently because I'll be issued a new card with a new card number, but disputing and getting a fraudulent charge removed has never been difficult. In fact, in a lot of cases, the bank is proactive about trying to identify those up front and contacts me.
If someone steals your chip+pin card and your pin you will probably be considered negligent by the bank. If they steal your credit card and fake your signature you will probably have zero liability.
Depending on how the liability is defined, I might consider purposefully burning out my chip-and-pin so it falls back to signature authorization. I'm not interested in allowing the credit industry pulling a bait-and-switch on me by promising a new secure system that also shifts liability to me, when the new system is horribly insecure. Luckily, since I live in the US, it looks like they are requiring online auth, so I just need to make sure this includes online pin auth.
Tip from my father, who switched from cash to almost all credit cards at POS: write "Photo ID Req." in permanent marker in the signature area. And, hey, one time when he sent me in to BBQ joint for some takeout with his card the cashier did look, but I was able to show my ID and make a plausible case for being his eldest son ^_^.
The lesson from your story is that "See ID" doesn't work. Indeed, these are the merchant guidelines from Visa:
It makes even more sense given this guideline, from the same handbook:
(Source, PDF: https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/VBS-06-APR-...)
I struggle to understand the security rationale behind that advice - what is more likely - Thief spends 60-90 seconds practicing the signature on the card, or Thief acquires government ID that matches name on the card.
Regardless - any time I'm making a large purchase (even with a signed card), you can be certain they scrutinize my government ID - I've never seen a retailer who has ever paid attention to the rules that stipulate you cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance.
If it were a meaningful amount of money, it's more likely the criminal would clone the card onto one with their own name on it.
It's purely a branding rationale. For some people, being "grilled like a potential criminal" by a checker would be enough for them to stop using the card or not shop at that store. Either way, it's a negative association between that merchant and that card for that kind of customer. Card networks have fantastic anti-fraud algorithms that are way more reliable than a bored teen checker.
Are many people like that?
Whenever a checker takes care to examine my credit card I make a point of thanking them for their diligence, as long as its within reason they're doing everyone a favor but the criminals.
I worked retail thru high school and college. Although some people were thankful I'd checked their ID, the majority were annoyed. N=1 and all that, but I imagine this was well-studied by the credit card companies - they're not in the business of losing money.
Problem is the card is not valid unless signed. An attentive merchant will insist on the card being signed. This has only happened to me a couple of times but still.
One of my American Express cards doesn't even have a place to sign anymore (Amex Blue Cash Everyday)
In California, Singapore, British Columbia - I've never had any problem with having an unsigned card, other than being asked for ID a handful of times.
I know people who do that, and they tell me that most merchants don't actually ask for ID. Which is surprising, since the merchant bears the pain in the case of fraud.
Except the person working the cash register isn't the merchant -- they are an employee, who isn't really worried about their job because they've only been there for a few months, and replaced a previous employee that was there for less than a year.
I guess in 99% of cases they see the transaction is not a fraud.
This is, by the way, the reason software development is hard - if you were to approach this problem the way typical software requirements are defined, you'd only piss the clerks off. In real life, people dynamically adjust their compliance with procedures to run the common case with minimum effort and improvise if something unexpected happens.
How often do people actually request Photo ID?
Certain organizations require cashiers to check ID 100% of the time. They generally deal with high value purchases (3-4 figures).
But outside of those? Almost never.
permanent marker is not that permanent under IPA or acetone.
The signature panel is not permanent either, on at least one of my cards it has rubbed off to reveal a strip of "void void void" underneath.
It would be hilarious if merchants let you use that card.
Considering at this point the vast majority of my CC usage never requires the card leave my possession, I can't imagine anything the card says being a major impediment.
The chip+signature card is pretty annoying when traveling. While visiting New Zealand (where local cards are all chip+PIN) with a U.S. chip+signature card, the majority of clerks actually request to see the card and visually inspect the signature. Also, I can’t use the cheapest petrol stations because they all require PIN.
I don't think I've signed the back of any of my cards in close to 10 years, and I've been asked for identification less than 10 times.
I think, honestly, the US system operates on the "well, if there is no chargeback, its valid" system.