Slashdot Mirror


Are Signature Pads Dangerous to Privacy?

WildHunter asks: "While making a foray into a local retailer today I paid using a credit card and was asked to sign a paper receipt on top of a digital pad. Being cautious I asked what it was for and I was assured that it was 'fully secure and safe to use'. Being a typical paranoid Slashdotter I offered to sign off of the pad but refused to sign on the pad. Was I over reacting or can someone back up my paranoia with some facts?" Think about it, some deceitful vendor has one of these, sells you something, gets your signature, and can then ring up loads of charges on your card using a digital copy of said signature over, and over, and over... you get the idea. Do the current crop of signature pads prevent against this and other similar kind of deceit?

6 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. I doubt there's more of an opportunity by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...than the physical signatures.

    Think about it. All the retailer gets is a digital copy of your signature. Now, they could conceivably sign your name to contracts with them and such. But in order to actually sign your name, the person with the copy of your signature would have to actually write it out with a pen. Now, even the most braindead clerk would get suspicious if you had to use a stencil to sign the credit card receipt.

    Yes, they could learn your signature from digitial printout, and if they're adept enough at forging, could do it that way. But they could do exactly the smae thing with old fashioned receipts (making copies of the receipt if necessary).

    In addition the credit card companies do maintain large anti-fraud departments to investigate this sort of thing (as under US law, you'd only be liable for up to $50 of the purchases the retailer would make without your actual signature; it he buys a brand new rig from AlienWare with your signature, several grand will be eaten by AlienWare (which doesn't help their relationship with the CC) or it gets eaten by the CC. Either way, they see a pattern of people who have transactions disallowed, all of whom made purchases at the same store, and the retailer gets in big trouble.

    There are more important risks with CC's.

  2. Spoof 'em. by inkfox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Those units are just like the old Koala Pads. It's a grid array of wires, which make contact when they touch. This means they can only accurately detect one position at once.

    I don't trust them because I don't know if they're recording a bitmap or vector/spline data. The former is okay, but the latter, if intercepted, can be used to make an infinite number of unique-looking but valid signatures. So, I usually make swirls with a fingernail while I sign, making a valid paper signature and a cloud of noise on the screen, since the pad can't tell which of four moving coordinates is the real active one when two different points are pressed at once.

    I've only ever had one merchant actually look at the screen and ask me to sign again. (He thought it was the unit's fault.) The rest seem to believe that the pad is checking my signature, not just recording it.

    --
    Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
  3. Usual paranoia by blankmange · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah - I don't like giving out my credit card info to questionable people behind the register either, but what are you going to do? Start using cash in all of your transactions?

    Digital signatures can be used by less-than-ethical sods just like your credit card number by the same people. Make sure your credit card company has fraud protection and be done with it....

    This is similar to the people who will willing give their credit card to a person behind the counter but refuse to shop online because 'it isn't secure enough'..... Get over the paranoia and get on with your life... it is too damn short to take up your time with menial crap like this....
    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
  4. Way paranoid by CMiYC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm really not sure where your concern is... If you are a credit card fraud victim, it doesn't matter if its a perfect digital signature or if its a handwritten one. You report both instances to your credit card company. I'm pretty sure they would clue-in if they noticed that all of a sudden you went on a $10,000 shopping spree and digitally signed your receipts exactly the same way every single time. (Again this is if you report it.) BFD, with these devices you can get a perfect digital signature. Well last time I checked, we are not digital machines. We are incapable of doing anything perfectly the same twice--including signing our name.

    I would be more concerned with the fact that these stores store our credit card NUMBERS, or when you order something over the phone (who knows if they aren't writing it down while typing it in?), or the clueless SSL "secure" websites that email you a confirmation with your CC number. Oops. I probably just gave you some more reasons to add a 3rd lock to your windowless house.

  5. some experience with this by vsync64 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Until recently, I used to work at Office Depot. During this time, the store switched over to electronic signature pads. To their credit, they did tell us how to bypass this procedure and allow the occasional paranoid customer (with suitable rolling of eyes) to sign on paper. Unlike Best Buy, from what I've heard.

    I was one of those paranoid customers whenever I bought something from the store, and I disliked having to allow customers to use the pads, for several reasons:

    You can guess a lot by how someone signs their card, and having the card in hand allows you to verify the pattern of hand movements for the signature, as well as check expiration date, holograms, etc. With the self-swiper, the customer retains the card at all times. Sure, you can watch the hand movements and compare to the signature if you get a glance at it, but regardless, most people put their card away quickly and furtively, triggering mental red flags, and then get pissy if you ask "Sir, may I see the card and a photo ID please?". So you lose either way.

    Secondly, the company would have a perfect digital record of the signature. Note that I said "company", not "store". While it's true that signatures could easily be forged from paper receipts, having a single giant database of signatures presents a much more tempting target, and a much greater reward should it be compromised. Keep in mind that Office Depot is the same company that has all their "locked-down" in-store kiosks brag about the need to enable unsigned ActiveX controls, so I'm not the most confident in their data security.

    This annoys me as a customer of other stores, too. "See ID" means nothing if the retailer never gets a chance to see it written on my card.

    The world of credit cards is rife with fraud and incompetence anyway. Gas stations and convenience stores are the worst. (I was recently in a gas station where the clerk told me, "Well, your signature matches, so I won't ask for your ID." Gee, thanks, lady.) And they're as obsolete as cheques -- we won't be remotely secure until we have smart chips in every card and deprecate all legacy swipers -- but I'm not sure if being secure in my identity can make me feel more secure overall. There are good reasons to keep the anonymity of cash around.

    Note that I wanted to use em dashes (— HTML character entity) in my penultimate sentence, but I guess Taco has decided to disallow the ampersand escape and further muddy the waters of HTML. Way to go, guy. Is it too complicated to equate   with the space character in your joke of a "lameness filter", instead of restricting those of us with US keyboards to ASCII-7? I notice you've already made an exception for &.

    --
    TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
  6. paranoia by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being a typical paranoid Slashdotter I offered to sign off of the pad but refused to sign on the pad.

    What's the point? Now all they need is a half-decent scanner and they get the same result - a digital copy of your signature.

    Was I over reacting or can someone back up my paranoia with some facts?"

    You were overreacting.

    Think about it, some deceitful vendor has one of these, sells you something, gets your signature, and can then ring up loads of charges on your card using a digital copy of said signature over, and over, and over...

    How is this something which can't be done with a photocopying machine and some scissors? And why would the person "ringing up loads of charges" care if the signature matches or not? It's not like vendors have a central database of signatures that they check against. At best they check against the signature on the back of your card, which they can only do if you're in person, in which case you can't use a digital signature anyway.

    Do the current crop of signature pads prevent against this and other similar kind of deceit?

    Maybe your misconception is what the signature pad does? Signature pads merely record your signature. They don't check it against a central database or anything. Even if they did, this wouldn't be subject to defeat as long as you witnessed the person making the signature.

    Or maybe your misconception is over who is responsible for fraudulent charges? A credit card purchase is simply a contractual agreement to pay. If the purchase is fraudulent, the merchant loses. Not the credit card company, and not the owner of the credit card (except for up to about $50 in some cases where the credit card was stolen). If your credit card wasn't stolen and the charge wasn't made with your permission, you're not responsible for the charges. Period.

    So what does a signature do to protect the merchant? It does two things. One, it allows the merchant to check the signature against the back of the card. Two, it gives the merchant a record of the contractual agreement.

    Will a judge render a judgement for the merchant in the case of the merchant forging a signature? It's possible, but there are a number of things against it. One major reason is that when a merchant gets too many chargebacks, they are generally dropped by the merchant bank. So the amount of money you can steal before you get caught is relatively low. Then, on top of that, a judge would generally take a digitally scanned signature as lesser weight than a regular one. Finally, if you can subpeona the original signature from which the copy is made and show that they are identical, then you have a slam dunk case, and the merchant will probably wind up in jail. Besides, a signature can be forged just as easily with a handy dandy photocopying machine.

    So, if anyone loses from digital signature pads, it's the merchant.