It's not exactly make believe, it's about transferring crime to one that may be easier to prove (and therefore easier to prosecute) or which has a harsher senta

It's not exactly make believe, it's about transferring crime to one that may be easier to prove (and therefore easier to prosecute) or which has a harsher sentance. If you didn't have signatures, it would be difficult to prove that someone was trying to steal your money if they paid with your card. They could come up with all kinds of excuses, such as "I thought it was my card", etc, to confuse the process. With a signature, it doesn't matter if the person signs it mickey mouse, because it's not what is signed it's the act of signing itself which then puts fraud into play. They are signing that they are you, and at that point fraud is much easier to prove, since you can produce a video of them signing that they are you. Also, the punishment is no longer dependent on how much they took or tried to take, because it's no longer about the taking of the money itself but about the fraudulent actions to do so. Much of the financial system, particularly the older parts, are set up in the same way.. where security isn't about preventing the money being stolen, money can be easily corrected later (just edit it back into the account), it's about making it easy to catch and prosecute offenders. It's not difficult to rob a bank, you can just walk into a bank, ask for the money and they'll give it to you, it's difficult to do so and keep the money after-ward. Security is provided by the legal system, not by ever stronger locks. I wonder if there's any way we can learn from that to improve security elsewhere such as online, or whether the international nature of the internet means that that model is broken. (For example see the SWIFT hacks, if they were carried out by NK then the legal system no longer works as a deterrent).