If you really want to start slinging, it is that very policy that causes privacy advocates fits. The theory of the last policy is that your credit card company will be liable for any fraud that occurs if the signature on the back of the card does not match the signature provided by the buyer.
First of all, I have never been in the situation where a bank/Credit Union have said "Let me contact the vendor and see if they checked the signature to the card"... Ten minutes later they contact you back and tell you that the fraudulent charges have been taken off of your account. It never really seems to occur that way in real life does it?
The next thing that I would point out is the fine print actually states "By signing OR USING THIS CARD, you acknowledge receipt of, and agree to be bound by, the Issuer's terms and conditions". That seems to indicate that you do NOT have to sign the card to be contractually bound to the terms set by the Issuer (merely using the card does that).
Lastly, signatures can be an X. And contracts have been made all over the world with less of a signature than "See ID". The funny part about this whole argument is according to the rules Visa suggests a vendor follow, a buyer could technically just sign the back of their card as "See ID" and then sign the slip "See ID" and say that should be sufficient for the transaction to occur.
I am sure it has been tried somewhere;-).
By the way, it irritates the heck out of me when places (such as the USPS require that I sign my credit card to do business with them - they apparently are telling users they have to sign their card to use it with them). I guess their legal team is completely inept, because they decided to stop reading the relevant information when the text became too small. Check it out for yourself - it is spelled out on every Visa card.
1) How much value did Google provide for the article? Google is reaping a huge benefit by providing this service (name recognition for one). The fact that they have the 14th most recognized traffic visiting this webpage brings a certain sort of panache to Google (as well as attracting web users and potential advertisers).
2) Don't you think CNN would much rather have you leave your homepage as their website vs. being on Google's? Because Google provides you the ability to jump directly to the article, you don't need to know which publisher made this article available to you. A lot of readers just peruse the article and move on, never realizing who published it.
3) Of course, if you were a NYT reader in general (because they have a good reputation and produce a superior product), you would be viewing the ads on their homepage (which would be more expensive because it should be their most viewed webpage) and ads located on the web pages of the articles themselves (plus any other articles that might have interested you). You would have many more hits than the current method Google provides.
I personally like the convenience that GN provides, but I view this service as a big win for Google and very minor win for the major news agencies that spend all of the money needed to produce the news. If Google does start to sell advertising on this site, I think that the major news sources will have a legitimate complaint against Google.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to start slinging, it is that very policy that causes privacy advocates fits. The theory of the last policy is that your credit card company will be liable for any fraud that occurs if the signature on the back of the card does not match the signature provided by the buyer. First of all, I have never been in the situation where a bank/Credit Union have said "Let me contact the vendor and see if they checked the signature to the card" ... Ten minutes later they contact you back and tell you that the fraudulent charges have been taken off of your account. It never really seems to occur that way in real life does it?
The next thing that I would point out is the fine print actually states "By signing OR USING THIS CARD, you acknowledge receipt of, and agree to be bound by, the Issuer's terms and conditions". That seems to indicate that you do NOT have to sign the card to be contractually bound to the terms set by the Issuer (merely using the card does that).
Lastly, signatures can be an X. And contracts have been made all over the world with less of a signature than "See ID". The funny part about this whole argument is according to the rules Visa suggests a vendor follow, a buyer could technically just sign the back of their card as "See ID" and then sign the slip "See ID" and say that should be sufficient for the transaction to occur.
I am sure it has been tried somewhere ;-).
By the way, it irritates the heck out of me when places (such as the USPS require that I sign my credit card to do business with them - they apparently are telling users they have to sign their card to use it with them). I guess their legal team is completely inept, because they decided to stop reading the relevant information when the text became too small. Check it out for yourself - it is spelled out on every Visa card.
1) How much value did Google provide for the article? Google is reaping a huge benefit by providing this service (name recognition for one). The fact that they have the 14th most recognized traffic visiting this webpage brings a certain sort of panache to Google (as well as attracting web users and potential advertisers). 2) Don't you think CNN would much rather have you leave your homepage as their website vs. being on Google's? Because Google provides you the ability to jump directly to the article, you don't need to know which publisher made this article available to you. A lot of readers just peruse the article and move on, never realizing who published it. 3) Of course, if you were a NYT reader in general (because they have a good reputation and produce a superior product), you would be viewing the ads on their homepage (which would be more expensive because it should be their most viewed webpage) and ads located on the web pages of the articles themselves (plus any other articles that might have interested you). You would have many more hits than the current method Google provides. I personally like the convenience that GN provides, but I view this service as a big win for Google and very minor win for the major news agencies that spend all of the money needed to produce the news. If Google does start to sell advertising on this site, I think that the major news sources will have a legitimate complaint against Google.