Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Unisoft-Cosmos; site micropro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!well!micropro!edg
From: edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Credit card carbons ("No, you can't have them")
Message-ID: <233@micropro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 15:57:58 EST
Article-I.D.: micropro.233
Posted: Thu Feb 13 15:57:58 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 03:11:19 EST
References: <8529@ucla-cs.ARPA> <514@mhuxl.UUCP> <850@felix.UUCP> <718@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg)
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Lines: 56

In article <718@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>(rather than the physical presentation of the card) for a charge wants to know
>the expiration date, I presume as an additional guard against fraud.  Can some-
>one clarify on this?  Surely this must have been chewed over before.  Mail, do
>not post, if your answer has already been seen on the net--address is in the
>signature below.  Thanks.
>-- 
>|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-

Back in the 70's, I worked for a temporary agency in the ONLY
BankAmericard (Now VISA) Authorization Center in the New York area.  We
got calls from merchants throughout the tri-state area. (NY, NJ, CT.)  
Later, I worked for a major New York bank in a Master Charge center
doing both authorization and transaction data entry. 

When we got a call (at BAC), we had to key in the card number, 
the dollar amount, and the expiration date.  

In order for the transaction to yield an authorization code (required
for mail/phone orders of any amount) you had to provide an authorization
code that would go through the computer.  We were forbidden to do
anything but key in what the merchant provided.

The real guard against fraud is the customer.  If the customer questions
a charge (or if the bank is unable to collect from the customer for _any_ 
reason,)  the first thing that happens to the transaction is that it is
examined for any irregularity.  If, for example, the authorization code
is missing or incorrect on the voucher, the transaction can be bounced.
Likewise the expiration date.  In this case, the merchant eats the
charge.  

If nothing was irregular, then the merchant was asked to produce the
"Signature on file" that he had certified to the bank.  If he could not do
so, he ate the transaction.  The technical term is "charged
back."  I don't know about phone orders.  I imagine that the merchant
should be able to trace delivery through UPS (or whoever.)

The point here is that the expiration date is _not_ required at any time
beyond the authorization stage unless the transaction comes up for
examination.

I've never had any opportunity to go through a contested charge, except
with American Express.  They are a delight to work with.  Questioned
charges disappear from your bill immediately while they are
"investigated."  If the merchant cannot satisfy AMEX, the charge is
cancelled.

Disclaimer:  I no longer work with credit cards.  When I did, I was a
low level employee.  I was not and am not a spokesman for anybody, and
speak from observation only, and that, back in 1974 & 5.

					-e
-- 
Ed Greenberg			| {hplabs,glacier}!well!micropro!edg
MicroPro International Corp.	|  {ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!edg
San Rafael, California		|       {lll-crg,ptsfa}!micropro!edg