James is just fine with companies violating the merchant agreement by checking his ID when he pays via credit card. His rationale is that the practice only increases his sense of security. He writes:
I’m pretty confused by some of the comments about a store requiring a person to show ID when using a credit card. Lets assume I’ve rejected some arguments…
Violates merchant agreement – From my perspective, asking for ID enhances my security, so the merchant sticking to this part of the agreement represents no value to me.
Card holder does not have their ID – It would be virtually impossible for me to have my credit card but not my ID since they are kept together so freeing me of the burden of carrying my ID is of no value to me.
Time added to transaction – The 2 seconds it takes to validate my name and likeness against the card is an insignificant cost compared to the security it provides. Or time in general for that matter.
…why is it a bad thing to have a store validate the card holders ID against the card? It also seems that some folks are trying to make the argument that the card being signed somehow validates the person presenting the card as the actual card holder when no ID is requested. Still others seem unconcerned by the idea of having their card stolen as the credit card company has their back somewhat. It’s still a pain to clean that up and it ultimately costs us money when the card company has to eat the losses.
It seems like such common sense to me that checking ID is a good thing, that for folks to take such a counter intuitive position on the subject, at the very least suggest that I may not have a good understanding of the issues involved.
Let’s put this to a vote. Choose your side, Consumerists: