Life lesson - In case you're not aware

[Tinstar]

I'll relate my recent experience for those of you that are unaware of some "new" policy with credit cards.

We made a recent trip from our home in the Dallas area to Carlsbad N.M. These transactions were on our MasterCard. On the way, I fueled up once without a problem. We got to the campground and paid for a couple of nights, went out to eat that night, paid our admission to the caverns and all is good so far. Later the next day, I had to buy a couple of tires due to a blowout on the way out there. When I went to pay the bill, my card was rejected. I had them run it again because I had a $10K credit limit and hardly anything on the card. Rejected again so I end up paying for the tires with a Visa and immediately called MasterCard. The customer service said it was rejected because I was out of my home area and the purchase was over $100,,,,, but I could now use my card to pay for the tires. Well, I had already paid for them with the Visa so that wasn't much help. Next day, I head back to Texas to continue my vacation. I get to a Travel Center and try to fuel up. My card is rejected, I go inside and try the card at the register,,, rejected. I fuel up using the Visa BUT before I got back in my m/h to leave I receive an automated message from Visa wanting to verify my identity. I go through all the prompts that I was me and I was the one making the purchase for fuel. When I get to my destination, we go out to eat and not only can I not pay using my MasterCard, now my Visa has been shut down.:M I go to my third card (another Visa) pay for our meal without a problem.

Next morning, I call MasterCard. I have to put in my information before I can talk to anyone. That triggered the call to be directed to their fraud department. I talk to a very nice gentleman that explained the whole thing. He said the Customer Service agent with whom I spoke with when in Carlsbad is not authorized to lift the fraud alert from my card and could only authorize a one time purchase. My account was flagged since I was out of my home area. They didn't call me to straighten it out because I had never given them permission to call me.:h Needless to say, I gave them permission and the flag was lifted. He said I need to go on-line or call them when I'm going to be out of my home area in the future so my account won't be flagged. That's not a problem for me and I appreciate them watching out for fraud but it would have been nice if I had known that in advance. Maybe they sent something in a bill and I just missed it,,, who knows? For the next week, I had no more problems with my MasterCard.

I now call Visa. Same story, they shut down my card because I was away from my home area. They authorized the one charge for fuel then shut the card down. I need to fill out the form with them when I'm going to be away.

OK, now I know. Just wish I knew before I left. I thought I was going to have to spend a few days at the tire shop changing tires (or washing dishes) for them to pay for the tires. For me, it certainly paid to have more than one or two cards. I actually carry 5 with me but normally never use anything other than the MasterCard.

Bottom line, if you use cards you might want to check with them and make sure you don't get flagged and shut down when you're away from home.

[AllegroD]

Deleted.

[FormerBoater]

Kiwi Too,

I never tied the requirement of a picture ID to privacy...that was your conclusion.

I just stated the fact that neither V or MC allow a merchant to ask for a picture ID (except for specific MasterCard transactions like money transfer, the purchase of gambling chips or stored value cards)as a condition for completing a sale using a Visa or MasterCard branded product.

You as a Cardholder have the right to request that the merchant ask for a picture I.D by writing that in the signature panel of the Card.

These days that is probably a good idea...I for one always provide a picture I.D. if the merchant requests it even though I know that it is prohibited in order to give the merchant comfort that he/she is not going to get a Chargeback.

No privacy issues whatsoever IMHO.

As far as my "arguments", after careful review I only find that I relayed in my posts the rules of the payment systems. The facts relayed were not as I see them, rather they are right out of the rules and regulations issued by V and MC except for which law enforcement entities would be involved in the event of criminal activity. Naturally that would depend on the specifics of the fraud perpetrated.

The arguments "Boater you're wrong, Visa and MC do not make the rules, I throw a red flag on this etc." originated on keyboards belonging to others.

[AllegroD]

FormerBoater wrote:
Well, my jar of Orville's is depleted at this point. It was all popped stove top with oils that do not harm you, so no detrimental impact to health or well-being.

It has been quite an experience to see how many in this community will go to extreme lengths to prove that they are right and you are wrong.

So, go forward, call your Bank as you are delayed on your journey, show your I.D.'s, reveal your itineraries, get to your next destination with your pile of cash etc.

The insults were extraordinary...I was only try to give our folks some insight as to how the payment system works with the cards that most of us have in our wallet...won't attempt again.

BTW, after complaining to my Issure about denying my diesel purchase in SC in July, they approved my purchase last weekend in the Bahamas. That is what having a V or MC is all about.

You are after all the customer, the banks are the ones getting the revenue

There are no delays, if done right. There are minor delays if not. If done right, by notifying bank in advance of your travel route, you pay and go. If not, then a call to the bank to verify your transaction and update your rouote will be required. I did it this way, once. Took me 15-30 minutes to get it corrected and I was back on the road. For me, this is a minor inconvenience to the hassle of having my card cancelled, due to a compromise, and having it reissued. If I am on the road, I would rather the bank protect me than be without my cards, mid trip. I am happy that PFCU has their security that assists me, even though there may be minor (my perspective) inconveniences.

And yes, we all state the facts as we see them, to support what we believe to be right, and that includes your arguments.

[AllegroD]

FormerBoater wrote:

Kiwi_too wrote:

FormerBoater wrote:

Kiwi_too wrote:
A store requiring valid ID to verify the authorized user of a CC is a violation of my privacy?? I throw the red flag on this.

It is against both Visa and MC rules unless requested by the Cardholder. To effect this the Cardholder simply writes on the signature panel to check the identification of the user.

If a merchant requests a valid ID to honor the card as a method of payment, the Cardholder has the right to complain to Visa or MC.

Visa or MC will contact the merchant's Acquirer with the complaint. The Acquirer must investigate and notify the merchant that this is in violation of Visa or MC rules (which the merchant is contractually bound to obey).

If the merchant does not cease and decest, card acceptance privileges can be revoked by either V or MC.

The issue was not policy but the statement that is was a violation of privacy. I am a firm believer that every credit card presented needs to be accompanied by a pic ID. That is my policy. I do not believe it violates anyone's privacy, as you have already stated an ID as it is on a CC. You now simply present a valid Pic ID as proof that you are the card owner or the person authorized to use it.

Your option as per the V and MC rules, you simply write on the signature panel, request I.D.

However, you are certainly not required to do this per the Rules and Regualations of both V and MC.

Good news is that you can opt to do this, but it is entirely up to you.

It may be your policy, but it is not the policy of either Visa or MasterCard.

I will say it again. This is not a comment on V or MC policy. It is a comment on privacy. Privacy is not compromised by asking or demanding pic ID.

[Francesca_Knowl]

Well I have to admit that for once the threadtitle lived up to itself.
"Life Lesson", indeed.

The Life Lesson I'm taking away here is that there is NO subject that we here at RV.net cannot belabor far, far beyond the intent of the original poster.

Do please carry on...and on...and on...

[msmith1199]

.deleted

[FormerBoater]

FormerBoater wrote:
Well, my jar of Orville's is depleted at this point. It was all popped stove top with oils that do not harm you, so no detrimental impact to health or well-being.

It has been quite an experience to see how many in this community will go to extreme lengths to prove that they are right and you are wrong.

So, go forward, call your Bank as you are delayed on your journey, show your I.D.'s, reveal your itineraries, get to your next destination with your pile of cash etc.

The insults were extraordinary...I was only try to give our folks some insight as to how the payment system works with the cards that most of us have in our wallet...won't attempt again.

BTW, after complaining to my Issurer about denying my diesel purchase in SC in July, they approved my purchase last weekend in the Bahamas. That is what having a V or MC is all about.

You are after all the customer, the banks are the ones getting the revenue

[FormerBoater]

Well, my jar of Orville's is depleted at this point. It was all popped stove top with oils that do not harm you, so no detrimental impact to health or well-being.

It has been quite an experience to see how many in this community will go to extreme lengths to prove that they are right and you are wrong.

So, go forward, call your Bank as you are delayed on your journey, show your I.D.'s, reveal your itineraries, get to your next destination with your pile of cash etc.

The insults were extraordinary...I was only try to give our folks some insight as to how the payment system works with the cards that most of us have in our wallet...won't attempt again.

BTW, after complaining to my Issure about denying my diesel purchase in SC in July, they approved my purchase last weekend in the Bahamas. That is what having a V or MC is all about.

You are after all the customer, the banks are the ones getting the revenue

[FormerBoater]

Kiwi_too wrote:

FormerBoater wrote:

Kiwi_too wrote:
A store requiring valid ID to verify the authorized user of a CC is a violation of my privacy?? I throw the red flag on this.

It is against both Visa and MC rules unless requested by the Cardholder. To effect this the Cardholder simply writes on the signature panel to check the identification of the user.

If a merchant requests a valid ID to honor the card as a method of payment, the Cardholder has the right to complain to Visa or MC.

Visa or MC will contact the merchant's Acquirer with the complaint. The Acquirer must investigate and notify the merchant that this is in violation of Visa or MC rules (which the merchant is contractually bound to obey).

If the merchant does not cease and decest, card acceptance privileges can be revoked by either V or MC.

The issue was not policy but the statement that is was a violation of privacy. I am a firm believer that every credit card presented needs to be accompanied by a pic ID. That is my policy. I do not believe it violates anyone's privacy, as you have already stated an ID as it is on a CC. You now simply present a valid Pic ID as proof that you are the card owner or the person authorized to use it.

Your option as per the V and MC rules, you simply write on the signature panel, request I.D.

However, you are certainly not required to do this per the Rules and Regualations of both V and MC.

Good news is that you can opt to do this, but it is entirely up to you.

It may be your policy, but it is not the policy of either Visa or MasterCard.

[Big_Blue]

Ran into this nearly 18 years ago when the Air Force made us get Travelers cards in lieu of cash advances for moves due to duty station tranfers. Halfway between North Dakota & Alabama, the card was rejected at the pump. Used another card to get along the way. That night, called to find out why the card was rejected. It seems that the card showed a pattern of traveling.

Well duh,I was using it to travel from old to new duty stations.

Now retired and always call before traveling. One call = no problems.

[AllegroD]

FormerBoater wrote:

Kiwi_too wrote:
A store requiring valid ID to verify the authorized user of a CC is a violation of my privacy?? I throw the red flag on this.

It is against both Visa and MC rules unless requested by the Cardholder. To effect this the Cardholder simply writes on the signature panel to check the identification of the user.

If a merchant requests a valid ID to honor the card as a method of payment, the Cardholder has the right to complain to Visa or MC.

Visa or MC will contact the merchant's Acquirer with the complaint. The Acquirer must investigate and notify the merchant that this is in violation of Visa or MC rules (which the merchant is contractually bound to obey).

If the merchant does not cease and decest, card acceptance privileges can be revoked by either V or MC.

The issue was not policy but the statement that is was a violation of privacy. I am a firm believer that every credit card presented needs to be accompanied by a pic ID. That is my policy. I do not believe it violates anyone's privacy, as you have already stated an ID as it is on a CC. You now simply present a valid Pic ID as proof that you are the card owner or the person authorized to use it.

[FormerBoater]

msmith1199 wrote:
FormerBoater: "My comment that local law enforcement is typically not involved is due to jurisdiction issues. Perhaps a "lone wolf" perpetrator of credit card fraud may fall within the local law enforcement jurisdiction, but typically organized crime is going to cross state lines and fall into federal jurisdiction."

Nope. Just because something crosses state lines doesn't take it out of the hand of local law enforcement. In fact crossing the state lines does bring in the potential for Federal involvement, however, that does not remove any jurisdiction from local law enforcement. And jurisdiction can be established in a lot of ways. Lets say I live in California and somebody compromises my credit card and uses it in Miami. Both California and Florida have jurisdiction on the matter, however, it would normally fall to Florida. There have been cases of people being prosecuted for violating a State law when they never even sat foot in that state. California went have mortgage fraudsters on the east coast who ripped off victims in California. Issued warrants and had them extradited to California to stand trial.

"typically not involved", not never involved.

[msmith1199]

FormerBoater: "My comment that local law enforcement is typically not involved is due to jurisdiction issues. Perhaps a "lone wolf" perpetrator of credit card fraud may fall within the local law enforcement jurisdiction, but typically organized crime is going to cross state lines and fall into federal jurisdiction."

Nope. Just because something crosses state lines doesn't take it out of the hand of local law enforcement. In fact crossing the state lines does bring in the potential for Federal involvement, however, that does not remove any jurisdiction from local law enforcement. And jurisdiction can be established in a lot of ways. Lets say I live in California and somebody compromises my credit card and uses it in Miami. Both California and Florida have jurisdiction on the matter, however, it would normally fall to Florida. There have been cases of people being prosecuted for violating a State law when they never even sat foot in that state. California went have mortgage fraudsters on the east coast who ripped off victims in California. Issued warrants and had them extradited to California to stand trial.

[FormerBoater]

Tinstar wrote:
You are right FormerBoater, you win, I was wrong. It was probably my imagination that I spent 5 years over the fraud unit investigating credit card fraud. I know that now since you told me that local law enforcement is not involved with it. I thought the whole thread is about fraud/theft since that is what they suspected when my card was cancelled while on vacation. I was wrong about that too. Oh, and I'm glad to know that V/MC won't shut my card down now if they suspect fraud. That was probably my imagination also. I'm relieved that I can now tell them they must approve any and all transactions that come their way and my transactions are none of their business. Thanks for the "life lesson" and your knowledge.

I'll unsubscribe too.

I have no doubt that you present your credentials factually.

You as the OP of this thread told a story where you were very much inconvenienced due to your Card Issuers (not having robust fraud technology)were taking the easy way out, declining your very legitimate attempts to make purchases while on the road.

As far as local law enforcement involvement, the V and MC rules will ensure that the Chargeback(s) initiated by the Cardholder (in your scenario) will be resolved in a very timely fashion as the Chargeback Rules are very specific about response times.

Law enforcement involvement would be up to the merchant(s) involved in your scenario of racking up thousands of dollars worth of purchases and then initiating Chargebacks to dispute the charges.

My comment that local law enforcement is typically not involved is due to jurisdiction issues. Perhaps a "lone wolf" perpetrator of credit card fraud may fall within the local law enforcement jurisdiction, but typically organized crime is going to cross state lines and fall into federal jurisdiction.

Chargebacks are debited to the merchant's Acquirer virtually immediately by the Issuer. Issuing bank(s) are therefore made whole within 1-2 business days.

Merchants have a finite, rather short timeframe (2 weeks or so) to respond to the Chargeback (in your scenario to prove that it was in fact you, the Cardholder in your scenario that made the purchases).

Large merchants have whole departments of folks that deal with Chargebacks and their acceptance practices are designed to minimize illegitimate Chargebacks (i.e. like in your scenario...it was your card(s) and you did make the purchases).

In a retail transaction it can be as simple as the full magnetic stripe read when the card was presented and the signature matches the signature on file with the Issuer.

E-commerce and other Card Not Present transactions are more difficult for the merchant to reverse, but proof of delivery, physical address where the merchandise was delivered, signature on the delivery receipt, I.P. address where the order originated are all tools that they customarily use and all of that information is easily accessible these days.

Card Issuers are rewarded handsomely each and every time you use their card. As the source of funds, they can Chargeback and debit the funds destined to the merchant with a click of the mouse.

Prosecution can take months or years,but the payment system(s) Rules and Regulations make sure the dollar issues are settled promptly with the lion's share of the freight being paid by the merchants...not the Issuers or the Cardholders.

My position has been stated to the best of my ability while attempting to educate our RV community of the rights they have while on the road. Some may only have one card in the wallet, some may not for any number of reasons want to publish their itinerary in a data base. Some may (prudently IMHO) not want to carry large sums of cash while on the road.

And yes, they must approve any and all of your transactions that are originated by you as long as your account is in good standing, has not been reported as lost or stolen etc.

Furthermore, if they know that your account has been hacked (Target, Home Depot etc.), they have a very simple remedy available to them...notify you and issue a new card with a new account number.

The expense to issue a new card is not material to the Issuing institution, especially when one sees the revenue they enjoy from your useage of the card(s).