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.

September 29[edit]

Cutting up a credit card[edit]

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)[reply]

This StackExchange [1] discussion quotes (dead) sources suggesting merchants are still asked to retain cards in certain circumstances, I suspect when it's suspected to be clear cut fraud e.g. potentially stolen or cloned or cards opened via identity theft. There's suggestion of cutting off the corner, and undefined cutting in 2 cases. As for more significant cutting up like cutting the card in half, these discussions include apparently first hand anecdotal examples people who either did it or had it done to them [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I doubt it was ever common that all declined cards would be cut up, especially not if it was simply due to being over the account limit but it seems it did happen in the past at least in the US and it was probably more common then and it also depends on the issuing bank. Pure speculation, but while cutting up the card may anger the customer, it would also likely reduce arguments over getting the card back or at least if the customer did get the card back it would be mostly useless. (As for the store's POV, well they may get in trouble with their merchant bank if they consistently fail to hold on to or cut up the card when requested, but one of the sources also mentions a direct monetary incentive.) Remembering that in the past non realtime (offline) transactions were a lot more common so even an over the limit card could potentially rack up a fair amount of debt. Nowadays that isn't much of a problem and the main reason to retain would likely be as I said clear cut fraud and so it's probably better to preserve the evidence. Note as many of the sources say, the card generally technically belongs to the bank so depending on local laws of course, they may not be stealing or destroying the card holder's personal property if just carrying out orders of the bank regardless of the rights and wrongs of what let up to the request. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you could cut a contactless card in half and still use the half with the chip in it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A contactless card relies on a loop, or several, of thin wire run around the edge of the card. In most designs of card, as contactless cards from different banks tend to run the wire in slightly different shapes of loop, any cut which separated a card into two equal parts would definitely break the antenna loop. The loop runs round the edge several times, typically, and then has short sections leading in to the chip and pin chip where incoming contactless data is processed before the chip sends out pulses to re-emit NFC radio signals back to the nearby device. If your bank gives you only contactless card options and you don't trust the contactless technology a careful etching with a scalpel on certain corners or near the edges of the card will break this antenna and leave the card fully functional except for the contactless ability, exactly where to make that ecth depends on your brand of card, hold to a bright light and you might be able to work out where the wire loop runs. Half a card cannot perform NFC functions, but a highly skileld adversary who got hold of a contactless card could in theory just retrieve the chip, unless it was broken and painstakingly fit a wire loop of his own. It wouldn't do the adversary much good for their effort, contactless payments are limited to relatively small amounts. But if you ever do wish to cut up a card to invalidate it then make sure to cut through the chip, or put a ltitle drill through it or something, to protect against this.

--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)[reply]

Hmm, reddit, stackexchange, and quora? Are those reliable secondary sources suitable for citing in articles? Anyway, yes it's true to life, because debit and credit cards are not our property: they belong to the financial institution. And they must be surrendered on demand. At least that's what's printed on all my cards. This is how the whole thing works, you see, the bank must gain possession of your card to properly process it in an ATM.

Reasons ATMs eat cards

What happens if the ATM takes my card?

One of the cases given is in the case of a damaged chip card. (If @Shantavira: is referring to a card using NFC, you could technically "try" to use a mutilated card for a transaction, but the bank would eventually—hopefully—get on your case for it. It's probably illegal, anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: not sure what your financial institution's terms are, but the cards in my wallet are expressly NOT my "personal property". Read your fine print, OK? Elizium23 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something cool: Some ATM machines are equipped with an auto-shred feature that destroys all abandoned cards and deposits the pieces into the reject tray. In this case, whoever services the machine is responsible for disposing of the pieces in a bank-approved, secure manner. The pieces cannot simply be dropped into a public waste basket where a thief could access them. Elizium23 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: not sure why you pinged me to repeat what I already said? Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that — I did not really read very much of what you wrote. I've been awake and on caffeine a long, long time. Elizium23 (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay no problem then. I understand my replies are generally quite long. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to a contactless card will usually stop contactless working, even if the chip is intact. My contactless cards are deliberately damaged in this way, to stop fraud (and the banks are incapable of issuing non-contactless on request). Similarly I have online-only cards for which I have no PIN. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(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.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was common, but it wasn't usually (for PR reasons) done in public. The point to is was that the card needed to be retained, but also to stop either the shop staff then using it fraudulently, or to defend the shop staff from counter-claims that they had used the card fraudulently. If you chop it in half, and the customer sees you chop it in half, then both are defended.

The reason for retaining the card is that credit cards have gone through six stages of security measures (the WP article covers none of these): physical cards and the Card-a-plate, phone verification to a central office, mag stripe swiping, Chip and PIN, CV2 numbers on the back and recently Contactless. Into the 1980s we were still regularly using just the first two - backwards countries like the US were doing it for even longer. With the old mechanical roller validators there was no verification of the current state of the card in real time. So such a card could rack up enormous charges before it went onto a watch list, or the customer made a charge big enough to justify the phone call. After which, it was necessary to get the card out of circulation.

So the point of this was to retain the card. Destroying it by cutting was a step beyond that, for a different reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

academic honor societies[edit]

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)[reply]

"stedens"? Do you mean "students"? And please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok ok, remember it’s harder to see what’s happenig on a small phone screen.Rich (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to increase text size and turn up brightness/disable auto-dimming. That's what I had to do to make my cell phone screen readable everywhere. Changing or inverting colors may also help. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several good-faith google searches looking through news reports for anything about lawsuits filed against either of those organizations. I found nothing. --Jayron 32 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's Sigma Alpha Pi? Did you mean Pi Sigma Alpha? Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Pi is an alternative name for the National Society for Leadership and Success (NSLS), a rather new honor society. See here for example. --Jayron 32 13:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

well students have been asking me about Sigma Alppha Pi,(NSLS) and I was and still am mildly suspicious, but if I had just asked about NSLS and there were lawsuits and investigations against them, it would be unfair to NSLS if there had also been lawsuits and investigations about the more established Phi Beta Kappa, making NCLS seem much worse. Anyway it appears there have been no lawsuits or prosecutions of either, for which I thank you. Also useful to learn they aren’t member of association of honor societies.144.35.28.34 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]