On 02/02/2015 02:32 PM, Josh Smift wrote: > I imagine that the signature was originally for non-repudiation: If you go > to a store and say "hey I didn't buy that", and they say "well, here's a > receipt with your signature on it", that makes it a lot harder for you to > prove that you didn't. > > Does anyone who's worked in the payment processing industry have a sense > of how often the presence of a signature is actually used to prove (or > disprove) anything? I'd sort of assumed that these days it's just security > theater.
I don't know about these days, but (many years ago now) I had a charge on my statement that I didn't make, right after a charge at the same retailer (a grocery store) that I did make (still not sure how that happened). I reported it to the card, and they sent back a letter saying "we reviewed the charge and concluded it was legitimate; a copy of the signed receipt is included". The signature on the receipt was not only not mine, but an altogether different name (not even an effort at a forgery). Yet the card's fraud department concluded it was valid. (Needless to say, I called again and they made things right and replaced my card. But it didn't install confidence.) =Dave -- Hello World. David Bronder - Systems Architect Segmentation Fault ITS-EI, Univ. of Iowa Core dumped, disk trashed, quota filled, soda warm. [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
