And if Apple had done that, the same people would be complaining about Apple spending $16 M on a SuperBowl ad. I'm sure we'd have a dozen trolls saying "Apple should be innovating instead of spending money on expensive ads".
That's true. No matter what Apple does or how much they sell, there will always be a few idiots to come along and try to paint the story as something negative.
Apple should just do whatever is right, without worrying about what a few naysayers and morons might say or think. Exactly what right means is a slightly different topic of course.
Does anyone remember all the scams that go on with Apple to turn CC #'s into cash? Organized criminals set up goods for sale with Apple (crappy indie music or stupid Apps). They then run huge $$$ through Apple with purchases by fake customers using those CC #'s. Apple takes their 30% cut and you get a cheque from Apple for the other 70%. You've just turned stolen credit cards into cash and only took a 30% hit. If Apple no longer required address or phone numbers then this type of scam could skyrocket.
To the people whining about privacy - did you know Apple has gift cards? Easy way to buy stuff without ever having to provide a CC #.
As KD mentioned, a merchant cannot refuse if your card is valid and you fail to provide additional ID. Now imagine a merchant asking to see a drivers license for that $1,000 laptop you just bought. There are two kinds of people: those that will happily comply and be happy the store is being vigilant and those "freaks" who will sit there and argue for 20 minutes about their rights being violated. Apparently this is a more productive use of their time than the 15 seconds it would take to flash your license to the clerk. These are the people who probably sued.
Yes, they can ask to see your id at a store, however most credit cards like Mastercard and Visa have merchant agreements that say that a store cannot refuse a transaction if you won't show your identification.
At least that's their official policy. For example:
Mastercard: "<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">A merchant must not refuse to complete a transaction solely because a cardholder refuses to provide additional identification information.</span>
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">However, there are certain situations where a merchant may require some personal information, such as a shipping address for online purchases.</span>
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">Additionally, if your MasterCard card is unsigned, a merchant should request personal identification to confirm your identify and ask the cardholder to sign the card before completing the transaction.</span>
If you believe that a merchant has violated the above standard or their actions requesting identification are questionable, you may report it by clicking the following URL and completing a brief online form."
Good luck on getting a store to follow all the rules, though.
Given the amount of credit card theft and fraud that goes on, how is a merchant supposed to protect themselves if they can't even require ID? In the B&M example, I'm not saying that they should be allowed to record the address, just ask to show proof that the purchaser is the valid user of the card. Add to that that the merchant is stuck with the loss if it turns out to be a fraudulent use of the card. The way the rules are written, it's as if the card issuers are deliberately setting up merchants for the fall with fraud. Thankfully, I haven't been hit with card fraud yet, but at least I sell a physical product, so I do get the address for an address verification check for some peace of mind.
If one does not want to 'reveal personal info, go buy from someone else who does not request it. Good luck.
Someone, preferably Tim Cook, please explain why Apple did not advertise in the Superbowl (largest viewing audience anytime anywhere for any TV event). Could they not come up with something appealing ? ( i am a long time shareholder of AAPL, who is disillusioned by their 'failing stock price.)
Advertising would do nothing for the falling stock price. The stock is being manipulated by professional traders and as such does not reflect real value in the company. Why you would even whine about this is beyond me as it is pretty clear what is going on.
Among the long and growing list of things you don't have a clue about, you can add security and privacy.
Were you one of the moronic plaintiffs or something?, because you certainly sound butthurt.
Since addresses and phone numbers don't matter, why don't you just hand over your credit card number to me (if you qualified for one) in your reply, without giving me the address or phone number and I'll make good use of it.
And listen up genius, addresses are important for credit cards, not just because of security reasons, but because it also tells you what country the card was issued in, and many retailers have restrictions on where they will sell to or ship to. There's a reason why Apple has different iTunes stores for each country.
It's OK, you've proven n that you represent the low-water mark for internet intelligence. You don't have to keep on proving it. Move on and get a life.
Given the amount of credit card theft and fraud that goes on, how is a merchant supposed to protect themselves if they can't even require ID? In the B&M example, I'm not saying that they should be allowed to record the address, just ask to show proof that the purchaser is the valid user of the card. Add to that that the merchant is stuck with the loss if it turns out to be a fraudulent use of the card. The way the rules are written, it's as if the card issuers are deliberately setting up merchants for the fall with fraud. Thankfully, I haven't been hit with card fraud yet, but at least I sell a physical product, so I do get the address for an address verification check for some peace of mind.
I got hit with a $1200+ chargeback last month, even doing everything right. The CC company gave me a choice of reversing the customer's charge, or holding all my other CC deposits until they could investigate our "unusual account activity". Not much of a choice.
Yes, they can ask to see your id at a store, however most credit cards like Mastercard and Visa have merchant agreements that say that a store cannot refuse a transaction if you won't show your identification.
At least that's their official policy. For example:
Mastercard: "A merchant must not refuse to complete a transaction solely because a cardholder refuses to provide additional identification information.
That's not what it says, that they can't refuse it, only that that must not be the sole reason. So, you don't show your ID, the store believes that's suspicious behavior, refusing to show your ID, and you have two reasons right there.
Anyone who has read even a few of my posts knows that I'm a strong privacy advocate, but I think the premise behind this lawsuit is ridiculous. Yes, it would be great if we had an unforgeable, theft-proof, anonymous way to make payments, but, short of that, until widespread theft and fraud are abolished, this is a very minor, acceptable evil.
Given the amount of credit card theft and fraud that goes on, how is a merchant supposed to protect themselves if they can't even require ID? In the B&M example, I'm not saying that they should be allowed to record the address, just ask to show proof that the purchaser is the valid user of the card. Add to that that the merchant is stuck with the loss if it turns out to be a fraudulent use of the card. The way the rules are written, it's as if the card issuers are deliberately setting up merchants for the fall with fraud. Thankfully, I haven't been hit with card fraud yet, but at least I sell a physical product, so I do get the address for an address verification check for some peace of mind.
Technically, the card issuer is on the hook for fraud. As long as the retailer follows the issuer's rules, it is the issuer who should be paying for fraud. While they can make it difficult to collect (as in Gatorguy's example), it is ultimately the issuer's problem. Retailers need to be a little more careful in who they choose to be their credit card processor - and if that's not enough, lobby for their states to clarify whose responsibility it is.
Anyone who has read even a few of my posts knows that I'm a strong privacy advocate, but I think the premise behind this lawsuit is ridiculous. Yes, it would be great if we had an unforgeable, theft-proof, anonymous way to make payments, but, short of that, until widespread theft and fraud are abolished, this is a very minor, acceptable evil.
Whether it's an acceptable evil or not isn't the issue in this case. The issue is what the California law allows and requires. Apple met the requirements of the law - according to an appeals court in a close split decision. That suggests that the law is somewhat ambiguous. It also suggests that the people who either think that requiring more information from purchasers is reasonable OR the people who think it's unreasonable need to write their legislators. This will not be sorted out in the courts.
It was actually a pretty close decision. If just one of the 4 judges that ruled in Apple's favor had instead decided the opposite then Apple would have lost at the California SC The ruling was split 4-3.
Did it never occur to you that some laws are ambiguous and need a court's interpretation? The very fact that the decision was 4-3 indicates that it was not clear cut.
i bet these plaintiffs post their personal info in facebook and allow it to be public.
Then there's this from Facebook:
Facebook is developing a smartphone application that will track the location of users.. . who access the service via handheld devices. The app...would run even when the program isn’t open on a handset, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t public.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And if Apple had done that, the same people would be complaining about Apple spending $16 M on a SuperBowl ad. I'm sure we'd have a dozen trolls saying "Apple should be innovating instead of spending money on expensive ads".
That's true. No matter what Apple does or how much they sell, there will always be a few idiots to come along and try to paint the story as something negative.
Apple should just do whatever is right, without worrying about what a few naysayers and morons might say or think. Exactly what right means is a slightly different topic of course.
Good decision.
Does anyone remember all the scams that go on with Apple to turn CC #'s into cash? Organized criminals set up goods for sale with Apple (crappy indie music or stupid Apps). They then run huge $$$ through Apple with purchases by fake customers using those CC #'s. Apple takes their 30% cut and you get a cheque from Apple for the other 70%. You've just turned stolen credit cards into cash and only took a 30% hit. If Apple no longer required address or phone numbers then this type of scam could skyrocket.
To the people whining about privacy - did you know Apple has gift cards? Easy way to buy stuff without ever having to provide a CC #.
As KD mentioned, a merchant cannot refuse if your card is valid and you fail to provide additional ID. Now imagine a merchant asking to see a drivers license for that $1,000 laptop you just bought. There are two kinds of people: those that will happily comply and be happy the store is being vigilant and those "freaks" who will sit there and argue for 20 minutes about their rights being violated. Apparently this is a more productive use of their time than the 15 seconds it would take to flash your license to the clerk. These are the people who probably sued.
Given the amount of credit card theft and fraud that goes on, how is a merchant supposed to protect themselves if they can't even require ID? In the B&M example, I'm not saying that they should be allowed to record the address, just ask to show proof that the purchaser is the valid user of the card. Add to that that the merchant is stuck with the loss if it turns out to be a fraudulent use of the card. The way the rules are written, it's as if the card issuers are deliberately setting up merchants for the fall with fraud. Thankfully, I haven't been hit with card fraud yet, but at least I sell a physical product, so I do get the address for an address verification check for some peace of mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Among the long and growing list of things you don't have a clue about, you can add security and privacy.
Were you one of the moronic plaintiffs or something?, because you certainly sound butthurt.
Since addresses and phone numbers don't matter, why don't you just hand over your credit card number to me (if you qualified for one) in your reply, without giving me the address or phone number and I'll make good use of it.
And listen up genius, addresses are important for credit cards, not just because of security reasons, but because it also tells you what country the card was issued in, and many retailers have restrictions on where they will sell to or ship to. There's a reason why Apple has different iTunes stores for each country.
It's OK, you've proven n that you represent the low-water mark for internet intelligence. You don't have to keep on proving it. Move on and get a life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Given the amount of credit card theft and fraud that goes on, how is a merchant supposed to protect themselves if they can't even require ID? In the B&M example, I'm not saying that they should be allowed to record the address, just ask to show proof that the purchaser is the valid user of the card. Add to that that the merchant is stuck with the loss if it turns out to be a fraudulent use of the card. The way the rules are written, it's as if the card issuers are deliberately setting up merchants for the fall with fraud. Thankfully, I haven't been hit with card fraud yet, but at least I sell a physical product, so I do get the address for an address verification check for some peace of mind.
I got hit with a $1200+ chargeback last month, even doing everything right. The CC company gave me a choice of reversing the customer's charge, or holding all my other CC deposits until they could investigate our "unusual account activity". Not much of a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Yes, they can ask to see your id at a store, however most credit cards like Mastercard and Visa have merchant agreements that say that a store cannot refuse a transaction if you won't show your identification.
At least that's their official policy. For example:
Mastercard: "A merchant must not refuse to complete a transaction solely because a cardholder refuses to provide additional identification information.
That's not what it says, that they can't refuse it, only that that must not be the sole reason. So, you don't show your ID, the store believes that's suspicious behavior, refusing to show your ID, and you have two reasons right there.
Anyone who has read even a few of my posts knows that I'm a strong privacy advocate, but I think the premise behind this lawsuit is ridiculous. Yes, it would be great if we had an unforgeable, theft-proof, anonymous way to make payments, but, short of that, until widespread theft and fraud are abolished, this is a very minor, acceptable evil.
Technically, the card issuer is on the hook for fraud. As long as the retailer follows the issuer's rules, it is the issuer who should be paying for fraud. While they can make it difficult to collect (as in Gatorguy's example), it is ultimately the issuer's problem. Retailers need to be a little more careful in who they choose to be their credit card processor - and if that's not enough, lobby for their states to clarify whose responsibility it is.
Whether it's an acceptable evil or not isn't the issue in this case. The issue is what the California law allows and requires. Apple met the requirements of the law - according to an appeals court in a close split decision. That suggests that the law is somewhat ambiguous. It also suggests that the people who either think that requiring more information from purchasers is reasonable OR the people who think it's unreasonable need to write their legislators. This will not be sorted out in the courts.
Valid points - thanks gents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
i bet these plaintiffs post their personal info in facebook and allow it to be public.
Then there's this from Facebook:
Facebook is developing a smartphone application that will track the location of users.. . who access the service via handheld devices. The app...would run even when the program isn’t open on a handset, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t public.