Miscellaneous desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 28 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | Current desk > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
In American television shows, from the 80s and 90s for instance, a trope is that a character will have their credit card denied and the waiter/waitress/clerk/etc. will cut the card up in front of the character. Did/does this ever happen? Or is this just a fabrication by Hollywood? † dismas†| (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
-- NotSupplied (no talk page) 00:04 1st Oct 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.46.199 ( talk) 23:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(Multiple EC) Your sources are interesting but don't directly address the question over whether it's true that staff in stores are used to confiscate card and cut them up. The fact that they may be allowed to doesn't of course prove they do so, and they conditions and what they do even when they do so could easily be different from what happens with ATMs. My sources may not be the best but they do suggest what the OP asked about happens.
If you want to get technical, I would count the StackExchange source as better than yours anyway. It explicitly cites Visa and Mastercard, which I would consider better sources for how Visa and Mastercard handle these sort of things than GoldstarATM and Pocketsense talking about something related but different. Quality reliable secondary sources may be better, but you didn't seem to cite any of those. It's true that the links are dead, but I didn't see any reason to suspect the person was lying about what the sources said although they could have missed something. Anyway the other point, I suspected and have now confirmed that the sources are still available on archives sites.
This one is Visa's [7]. From what I see, that mentions confiscation in two parts, page 29 (33 of the PDF) and 38 (42) and to some extent page 28/32, 67/71 and 71/75. It seems that as of that document circa 2014 at least in some places, merchants may still receive a Card Recovery Bulletin with a list of cards. The automatic response from the electronic authorisation may also ask for the card to be confiscated (pick-up response). The document doesn't definitely say when this happens, but the details it does provide strongly imply what I said before, this most commonly happens when some malfeasance is expected rather than just because the card is over the limit. (Which IIRC is often the implied scenario on TV.) There's also the possibility the merchant will be asked to call the authorisation centre, I suspect depending precisely on what happens, one possible outcome is the merchant will be asked to keep the card if possible. Merchants are also asked to confiscate cards by themselves if they suspect it's "being used fraudulently or is altered or counterfeit". The possibility of a reward is also mentioned. Visa is the one who says to cut up the card
Mastercard's one is here [8]. Interestingly on 8-6 (172 of the PDF), merchants are asked to retain the card while doing an authorisation request when not using an access device or mobile payment device. (I could't find anything similar on Visa's although it may be somewhere and I just missed it.) Anyway on the same page, merchants are asked to pick up cards when it lacks a hologram. For other suspicious cards, the merchant is asked to contact the acquirer instead. (Which again would suggest one possible outcome would also be that the merchant is asked to retain the card.) In 8-10 (176), similar "pick-up card" or "capture card" response to an authorisation request are mentioned like Visa. As per the Stack-Exchange discussion, I can't see any specific mention of cutting up cards in the Mastercard rules.
I had a quick look for more recent documents found [9]. Doesn't look that different, it's dated 2017 so not much newer. I also came across [10] interestingly, it seems as per page 474 in Europe contactless payment transactions cannot have a pick-up card response for Visa. Also per page 474, it seems you don't have to try and recover a card when using a mobile payment device. Page 578 provides details for US merchant's cutting cards. It says to cut it horizontally without damaging "Magnetic Stripe, Chip, hologram (if applicable), and embossed or printed Account Number" but not for non reloadable prepaid cards and only when they were asked specific request. For cases where the merchant was suspicious or the card looked dodgy I assume they contact the acquirer or similar. Page 754 discusses rewards for recovered cards.
One thing I'm reminded of while reading this, there are non ATM cardholder activated unattended terminals. I guess some of these may have the ability to retain cards as well, it seems with these the card should always be rendered unusable. BTW, if wondering what an acquirer is, see page 767 and maybe 805.
Anyway Mastercard latest rules are here [11] again seems the same. I did find [12] which has more details. It seems Mastercard does say to cut the card in half through the magnetic stripe if it's being send through mail (page 28). Still no other mention of cutting the card I can see.
I'd note neither Visa or Mastercard suggest it needs to be done in front of the card holder. They both also say "reasonable" and "peaceful". So I suspect it's probably not that hard for the card holder to convince the merchant to return the card, albeit with the normal variation coming from different interpretations and the fact most people who need to do this are probably just going by what someone told them sometime.
(Multiple EC) Shantavira: Even if it still works, I'm not sure what percentage of contactless transactions use online vs offline authorisation. I sort of assumed these were mostly online, they happen fast but I assumed that's because of modern communication. Looking around a bit, I'm not so sure. In any case, if the card has been cut the card holder would still need to make sure the merchant doesn't notice. And these have to be low value transactions so are less of a concern.
Maybe this wasn't clear, but the point I was making is when merchants process transactions without receiving online authorisation e.g. those swiping devices to obtain an imprint of the card on paper or just retaining the details on the terminal for later transmission, even an account over the limit could continue to be used. (As well as any dodgy card.) So in the past, there was probably more imperative to retain the card, even in cases where it was simply over the limit, especially well over and still being used. Cutting the card would help since even if the customer demanded it back, with most card present transactions the merchant should see it's cut and reject it no matter the stripe was still fine. Especially if it was a signature rather than PIN transaction.
From Visa's instructions, it sounds like nowadays they specifically want the key parts of the card to be undamaged, I assume in case there's need for further investigation. Admittedly there's no mention of this, only of the later destruction requirements. Implicit in this is that merchants are not expected to be able to comply with their logging and destruction requirements. So it's possible the main reason is they want to avoid cards excessively damaged by the merchant since someone else is going to need to handle that. (Mastercard appears to be concerned about stuff stolen or lost in the mail.)
Have honor societies like Phi Beta Kappa or Sigma Alpha Pi ever been accused of defrauding stedens? Have there been lawsuits or prosecutions? Rich ( talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Looking into this, it seems that Sigma Alpha Pi is the name sometimes used to refer to the National Society of Leadership and Success ( [13]) [14] including at some universities/colleges [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and possibly in the messages they send inviting students. As you can tell from the red links, this seems to be an organisation which may not even be notable by wikipedia standards. This organisation seems to get a lot of questions including suggestions it's profit oriented [20] [21] [22], their lack of membership in the Association of College Honor Societies and maybe a key one given this question, concerns that their greek letter name was chosen to try and confuse people with the aforementioned Pi Sigma Alpha.
By comparison Phi Beta Kappa has existed for a long time. It sounds like they're no longer a member of the ACHS but they still seem to be fairly respected and are also very well known. In fact, this [23] even quotes their CEO when discussing how to decide if an honour society is a scam. Since they seem to be one of the first, I guess no one thinks their name was chosen to confuse people with some other organisation.
I mean I'm sure there are plenty of people who think both are equally useless [24] and it's true both require fees, but on the whole these seem quite different organisations to me. One seems much more like the thing people would accuse of trying to defraud them. (Albeit the longer existence gives more history and bigger name may make the other a more attractive target.) So I'm just wondering if you really meant us to consider these two specific examples given how different they seem to be?
Nil Einne ( talk) 14:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Miscellaneous desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 28 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | Current desk > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
In American television shows, from the 80s and 90s for instance, a trope is that a character will have their credit card denied and the waiter/waitress/clerk/etc. will cut the card up in front of the character. Did/does this ever happen? Or is this just a fabrication by Hollywood? † dismas†| (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
-- NotSupplied (no talk page) 00:04 1st Oct 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.46.199 ( talk) 23:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(Multiple EC) Your sources are interesting but don't directly address the question over whether it's true that staff in stores are used to confiscate card and cut them up. The fact that they may be allowed to doesn't of course prove they do so, and they conditions and what they do even when they do so could easily be different from what happens with ATMs. My sources may not be the best but they do suggest what the OP asked about happens.
If you want to get technical, I would count the StackExchange source as better than yours anyway. It explicitly cites Visa and Mastercard, which I would consider better sources for how Visa and Mastercard handle these sort of things than GoldstarATM and Pocketsense talking about something related but different. Quality reliable secondary sources may be better, but you didn't seem to cite any of those. It's true that the links are dead, but I didn't see any reason to suspect the person was lying about what the sources said although they could have missed something. Anyway the other point, I suspected and have now confirmed that the sources are still available on archives sites.
This one is Visa's [7]. From what I see, that mentions confiscation in two parts, page 29 (33 of the PDF) and 38 (42) and to some extent page 28/32, 67/71 and 71/75. It seems that as of that document circa 2014 at least in some places, merchants may still receive a Card Recovery Bulletin with a list of cards. The automatic response from the electronic authorisation may also ask for the card to be confiscated (pick-up response). The document doesn't definitely say when this happens, but the details it does provide strongly imply what I said before, this most commonly happens when some malfeasance is expected rather than just because the card is over the limit. (Which IIRC is often the implied scenario on TV.) There's also the possibility the merchant will be asked to call the authorisation centre, I suspect depending precisely on what happens, one possible outcome is the merchant will be asked to keep the card if possible. Merchants are also asked to confiscate cards by themselves if they suspect it's "being used fraudulently or is altered or counterfeit". The possibility of a reward is also mentioned. Visa is the one who says to cut up the card
Mastercard's one is here [8]. Interestingly on 8-6 (172 of the PDF), merchants are asked to retain the card while doing an authorisation request when not using an access device or mobile payment device. (I could't find anything similar on Visa's although it may be somewhere and I just missed it.) Anyway on the same page, merchants are asked to pick up cards when it lacks a hologram. For other suspicious cards, the merchant is asked to contact the acquirer instead. (Which again would suggest one possible outcome would also be that the merchant is asked to retain the card.) In 8-10 (176), similar "pick-up card" or "capture card" response to an authorisation request are mentioned like Visa. As per the Stack-Exchange discussion, I can't see any specific mention of cutting up cards in the Mastercard rules.
I had a quick look for more recent documents found [9]. Doesn't look that different, it's dated 2017 so not much newer. I also came across [10] interestingly, it seems as per page 474 in Europe contactless payment transactions cannot have a pick-up card response for Visa. Also per page 474, it seems you don't have to try and recover a card when using a mobile payment device. Page 578 provides details for US merchant's cutting cards. It says to cut it horizontally without damaging "Magnetic Stripe, Chip, hologram (if applicable), and embossed or printed Account Number" but not for non reloadable prepaid cards and only when they were asked specific request. For cases where the merchant was suspicious or the card looked dodgy I assume they contact the acquirer or similar. Page 754 discusses rewards for recovered cards.
One thing I'm reminded of while reading this, there are non ATM cardholder activated unattended terminals. I guess some of these may have the ability to retain cards as well, it seems with these the card should always be rendered unusable. BTW, if wondering what an acquirer is, see page 767 and maybe 805.
Anyway Mastercard latest rules are here [11] again seems the same. I did find [12] which has more details. It seems Mastercard does say to cut the card in half through the magnetic stripe if it's being send through mail (page 28). Still no other mention of cutting the card I can see.
I'd note neither Visa or Mastercard suggest it needs to be done in front of the card holder. They both also say "reasonable" and "peaceful". So I suspect it's probably not that hard for the card holder to convince the merchant to return the card, albeit with the normal variation coming from different interpretations and the fact most people who need to do this are probably just going by what someone told them sometime.
(Multiple EC) Shantavira: Even if it still works, I'm not sure what percentage of contactless transactions use online vs offline authorisation. I sort of assumed these were mostly online, they happen fast but I assumed that's because of modern communication. Looking around a bit, I'm not so sure. In any case, if the card has been cut the card holder would still need to make sure the merchant doesn't notice. And these have to be low value transactions so are less of a concern.
Maybe this wasn't clear, but the point I was making is when merchants process transactions without receiving online authorisation e.g. those swiping devices to obtain an imprint of the card on paper or just retaining the details on the terminal for later transmission, even an account over the limit could continue to be used. (As well as any dodgy card.) So in the past, there was probably more imperative to retain the card, even in cases where it was simply over the limit, especially well over and still being used. Cutting the card would help since even if the customer demanded it back, with most card present transactions the merchant should see it's cut and reject it no matter the stripe was still fine. Especially if it was a signature rather than PIN transaction.
From Visa's instructions, it sounds like nowadays they specifically want the key parts of the card to be undamaged, I assume in case there's need for further investigation. Admittedly there's no mention of this, only of the later destruction requirements. Implicit in this is that merchants are not expected to be able to comply with their logging and destruction requirements. So it's possible the main reason is they want to avoid cards excessively damaged by the merchant since someone else is going to need to handle that. (Mastercard appears to be concerned about stuff stolen or lost in the mail.)
Have honor societies like Phi Beta Kappa or Sigma Alpha Pi ever been accused of defrauding stedens? Have there been lawsuits or prosecutions? Rich ( talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Looking into this, it seems that Sigma Alpha Pi is the name sometimes used to refer to the National Society of Leadership and Success ( [13]) [14] including at some universities/colleges [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and possibly in the messages they send inviting students. As you can tell from the red links, this seems to be an organisation which may not even be notable by wikipedia standards. This organisation seems to get a lot of questions including suggestions it's profit oriented [20] [21] [22], their lack of membership in the Association of College Honor Societies and maybe a key one given this question, concerns that their greek letter name was chosen to try and confuse people with the aforementioned Pi Sigma Alpha.
By comparison Phi Beta Kappa has existed for a long time. It sounds like they're no longer a member of the ACHS but they still seem to be fairly respected and are also very well known. In fact, this [23] even quotes their CEO when discussing how to decide if an honour society is a scam. Since they seem to be one of the first, I guess no one thinks their name was chosen to confuse people with some other organisation.
I mean I'm sure there are plenty of people who think both are equally useless [24] and it's true both require fees, but on the whole these seem quite different organisations to me. One seems much more like the thing people would accuse of trying to defraud them. (Albeit the longer existence gives more history and bigger name may make the other a more attractive target.) So I'm just wondering if you really meant us to consider these two specific examples given how different they seem to be?
Nil Einne ( talk) 14:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)