3 ms·

I think the story with the credit card makes more sense than it seems at a glance: They want to make sure you hadn't intentionally produced two different signa

I think the story with the credit card makes more sense than it seems at a glance: They want to make sure you hadn't intentionally produced two different signatures. I think, in theory, you could later dispute the charge and the merchant would have nothing on you, if the signature didn't match the one on the card. Not to say that it's a flawless safeguard :)

dachryn 4y ago
exactly this. Processes have more than 1 reason to exist.
red_admiral 4y ago
I think the credit card check sort of makes sense. Suppose Alex gets a credit card, signs it, and then Bob steals the card and tries to buy something with it at the store. I presume this is back in the days when credit card transactions are processed offline. The store doesn't want to find out at the end of the day that the card has been cancelled and they're not getting the money. "Can you create a plausible replica of the signature on the back of the card" slightly reduces the probability of this scenario happening. If Alex walks into the store with his shiny new card, but he hasn't signed it yet, the store is actually doing him a favor asking him to sign it - otherwise, if Bob nicks it, Bob can sign the card himself before entering the store, and pass the signature test. Even the store clerk blindly following the "do the signatures match" procedure like described above produces some small non-stupid net positive security value.
nobody9999 4y ago
>They want to make sure you hadn't intentionally produced two different signatures. I think, in theory, you could later dispute the charge and the merchant would have nothing on you, if the signature didn't match the one on the card. It certainly seems to be pretty useless though, and most stores just ignore the signature. I recall being at a liquor store with my mother (15 years ago or so) and she was buying a bunch of wine. We got to the checkout and she decided she was going back to the car and handed me her credit card in full view of the cashier. After the cashier ran the credit card, I had to sign the receipt. Since she'd seen my mother hand me the card, I asked the cashier (a teenage or early 20s American) "what dead president's name should I sign the receipt with?" (note that this is in the US) Depressingly, she replied "Benjamin Franklin." (N.B., for non USAians, while Franklin was a very important member of our founding generation, he was never president). As such, at least in my experience, it's been a very long time since anyone really cared about signatures on credit card receipts. These days (in the US, and for much longer elsewhere), chip and PIN are king.

dachryn 4y ago

exactly this. Processes have more than 1 reason to exist.

red_admiral 4y ago

I think the credit card check sort of makes sense. Suppose Alex gets a credit card, signs it, and then Bob steals the card and tries to buy something with it at the store. I presume this is back in the days when credit card transactions are processed offline. The store doesn't want to find out at the end of the day that the card has been cancelled and they're not getting the money. "Can you create a plausible replica of the signature on the back of the card" slightly reduces the probability of this scenario happening. If Alex walks into the store with his shiny new card, but he hasn't signed it yet, the store is actually doing him a favor asking him to sign it - otherwise, if Bob nicks it, Bob can sign the card himself before entering the store, and pass the signature test. Even the store clerk blindly following the "do the signatures match" procedure like described above produces some small non-stupid net positive security value.

nobody9999 4y ago

>They want to make sure you hadn't intentionally produced two different signatures. I think, in theory, you could later dispute the charge and the merchant would have nothing on you, if the signature didn't match the one on the card. It certainly seems to be pretty useless though, and most stores just ignore the signature. I recall being at a liquor store with my mother (15 years ago or so) and she was buying a bunch of wine. We got to the checkout and she decided she was going back to the car and handed me her credit card in full view of the cashier. After the cashier ran the credit card, I had to sign the receipt. Since she'd seen my mother hand me the card, I asked the cashier (a teenage or early 20s American) "what dead president's name should I sign the receipt with?" (note that this is in the US) Depressingly, she replied "Benjamin Franklin." (N.B., for non USAians, while Franklin was a very important member of our founding generation, he was never president). As such, at least in my experience, it's been a very long time since anyone really cared about signatures on credit card receipts. These days (in the US, and for much longer elsewhere), chip and PIN are king.