On Dec 19, 4:46*pm, Metspitzer wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:40:39 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:12*pm, Metspitzer wrote:
Anyone think having your photo on your card is a bad idea?

Only when I think of how much more the CC companies would charge us to
obtain, update and maintain our pictures in their database.

You know that they won't do it for free.

Wow..............really? * My niece just had a picture of her
Pomeranian put on her ATM card....................for free.



And what exactly would be the point?

The point? * Have a guess.

Most places don't even look at







the credit card these days. Mostly we just swipe and pocket.

I don't think they've actually checked my signature in years.

Do you really think that putting a picture of a dog - any dog...in
fact, *anybody's* dog - is the same thing as putting the card owner's
photo on the card?

I'm guessing she's not using the dog to identify herself. There's no
liability on the CC company's part in putting a pet or a flower or
your first car on the card.

However, if the CC company is going to put your picture on the card so
that it can be used to prove that the holder is the card owner, I'm
guessing (but I don't know for sure) that there is some liability on
their part and therefore it won't be free.