Originally Posted by
WayneRedreturns
I get it and this why I opened this up for discussion.
What I want to get at is solution and to make the process as smooth as possible. Moving pass picture id etc. What would you suggest as a solution for the UK?
Wayne
The problem is that the solution depends on which local council area you live in. Here in Bracknell, the solution would be to get the edge card. It is used to identify those entitled to special discounts, subsidised council services, use of libraries etc. It has a photo of the holder too!
It is also FREE for anyone living here because it is used to access council services, and substitutes for a library card, etc. It can also be used as a proof of age card.
I know that 6 other councils bought the rights to use the scheme, but it may have a different name.
The main problem is that a photo of the holder is not usually added to such types of document. There was a trial of credit cards with the photo of the holder as a means to make sure it was being used by it's rightful owner, but it was scrapped because although more secure, the banks decided it was too expensive to implement as a solution. It turned out to be cheaper for the banks to foot the bill for card fraud than to roll out a national photo credit card scheme. Chip & Pin was later developed to overcome these concerns, but AGAIN the level of security was sacrificed to the aim of spending the least money possible on the scheme, which is why chip & pin is regularly being beaten by the cleverest criminals, and forever getting "patched".
The bottom line is COST - it is simply so much more expensive to issue photo documents than paper ones, so this is currently reserved for documents that really matter, such as passports, drivers license, and work passes for places involved in sensitive work (nuclear, defence, etc).
The only thing that is issued to EVERY adult in the UK is their own unique national insurance number, which stays with them for life. A "national insurance card" is no longer issued though, as the records have long since gone "paperless", and verification and taxation is done electronically.
The other document that gets issued to every adult is the P60 - a tax deduction form that MUST be provided to taxpayers by any entity that pays them money, such as their place of work, the benefits office, and any financial company that pays interest, dividends, etc.
Much of this too is going paperless, with much of this documentation being issued "online only" rather than being posted. An online version of, say, a utilty bill is sufficient for it's intended purpose, which is to bill a consumer for what they have used. It is not the responsibilty of the utility company to make it's systems work for the purpose of ID checking, they are after all, private companies out to make a profit, just like an online casino.
I don't see online casinos sending players a quarterly statement of their deposits and withdrawals by post - this is all available to the player through the MGS lobby, and by email from CS. This is sufficient for the purpose of giving the player a record of their transactions.
Since casinos often send promotions to their players through the post, I see no reason why they can't do address verification themselves, by posting a unique code to a new player that has to be confirmed before they can withdraw. This would be just as good as a utilty bill for this purpose, and would probably be even better because the casino is in full control of this document, not a utility company, and could design it so that players could not pretend they have received it when they hadn't - which can easily be done for a utilty bill because of how they are now mass produced in "print runs" with an industrial version of a home printer, and from a template that is easy to reproduce.
Any solution would most likely involve more than 2/3 documents, and the best approach would be to base it on what the DVLA require in the way of supporting documentation before they issue a photo driving license.
I am not sure where, but there is a government sanctioned list of "tier 1" and "tier 2" documentation that advises on which combinations are acceptable to meet the requirements of the legislation to "know who your customer is".
A more effective solution would be for the casino industry to run it's own ID scheme, where they would all contribute to a central organisation that would verify all the different types of documentation, and issue players with their own unique "players card" in a similar way to how other businesses have dealt with this problem.
Companies that offer season passes, such as annual bus and train tickets, issue a photo ticket to ensure that only the holder can use it, rather than hand it around to a group of friends.
Passes for major theme parks work like this. They offer unlimited access for a whole year, but no holder would actually want to go to the theme park every day, so they factor this into the price. Because of this, they add a photo to ensure that a group of people can't all use the same pass on different days, or even the same day by passing it through the boundary fence for their friends to get in with.
Any such scheme has to be open to ALL players, unlike the proxies used for ID in the UK, such as the driving license ONLY being available to someone who has passed their test. The DVLA do NOT operate an "ID only" version with no actual driving permissions, which is a shame because this WOULD be a neat solution to the problem. This is something big business needs to take up with government, and if funded by business, government would be likely to push forward with such a scheme. Other schemes have gone ahead with government backing because businesses wanted them, and agreed to carry the costs. Other schemes have gone ahead because the government decided business needed them, and forced businesses to carry the cost, but have less say in how it worked.
With online gambling becoming more popular, and the extension of UKash acceptance which is designed for the "financially marginalised" members of society that don't have bank accounts, the problem of no photo ID (or proxy) will grow.
Another problem that offshore operators face is that the Data Protection laws can work against the verification process, for example, it is not possible for a private company to submit a national insurance number and be told the details of who it belongs to. Such information is ONLY made available to companies that have been specifially authorised to receive this level of cooperation. The three credit reference agencies that operate within the UK have this kind of authorisation to cross check with government databases, so companies wanting to verify a customers' details would usually submit a ID verification search with one of these agencies with the data they have for the customer. The agency will then check the records, and issue a pass or fail to match on the two sets of details. Most adults leave a trail with these agencies, and the more financially active they are, the better the trail. It is even possible to make a fraud check on a set of details, as anyone who thinks their details have been misused can have a CIFAS marker placed on their credit file, which will alert any company running a check that the details have been compromised, and thus extra checks would be wise.
Notarisation is also a useful step for non-photo documents, and for this to work, the casino should check with the notary named on the stamp to confirm it is genuine. Casinos need to be aware that notaries work office hours, and have other business to attend to, and will not necessarily come to the phone right away to answer such a question. Having documents "notarised by the police, bank, dentist, etc" is NOT proper notarisation, but more of a case of "witnessing" the document as presented to them by the holder. The main difference is that these "witnesses" do NOT have to be contactable to verify their "notarisation", and may not keep accurate records of the act as would be the case with a proper public notary of solicitor.
A proper "notarised copy" would come with a seal clearly identifying the notary, along with details on how to contact them (a postal address at least).
Players don't like notarised documents because it takes time and money to prepare, often comes along as an "ambush demand" from the casino, and when asked about it, operators claim it is "very rare" for them to ask for a notarised document - which to the player receiving such a request is to them, "a load of bollocks", and probably a "stalling tactic". Once a player thinks they are getting screwed, their attitude changes towards the casino, and they feel they are now in a fight to prevent themselves from getting screwed. This then leads to the often rash decision of dropping the "C bomb" on the casino (by which I mean CHARGEBACK, not C***, although some CS staff may beg to differ on this). Most "C bombs" are never detonated, because the player soon realises it was a bad move, and only serves to gridlock the process altogether, because the casino KNOWS that the odds are heavily stacked against them on this, and cannot be certain they have defused the "C bomb" until around 6 months after the deposit was made. The result for the player is a 6 month delay because they have got the casino worried.
For casinos facing this, a refund of the deposit back to the credit card or VISA debit card it came from will prevent a chargeback from going through, which is why the deposit is often refunded quite early in cases of disputed winnings down to bonus term violations, even though the outcome of any dispute is not known.
The OP should not have deployed the "C bomb" as alleged, as he was disputing a mere $100, but the deposits amount to far more, and it is these deposits that would be at risk of being charged back.
There are many players who MISUSE the consumer credit act by FRAUDULENTLY charging back losses, and even deposits from which they won, but where they were paid out by an alternate method. Casinos should be refunding back to VISA cards from the UK, as this is allowed by the banks, and by not supporting this with their choice of processor are making themselves vulnerable to such fraud schemes. It is then the INNOCENT player that suffers because their credit card deposits cannot be told apart from those of an undetected fraudster, and hence they suffer the inconvenience of the additional measures casinos put in place because they don't use a processor that supports refunds to VISA cards.
My own experience is that Red Flush do NOT support automatic refunds up to the amounts deposited to a VISA card, but pay EVERYTHING to the method of withdrawal. Fine if the player is innocent, but an opportunity for fraudsters.
Casino Rewards DO refund the original deposits back to VISA cards, and they INSIST, whatever method of withdrawal has been selected by the player, and however VIP they are.
Much of this is down to the fact that "remote gambling" was specifically made legal in the recent update to our gambling laws, and there is no need for operators to disguise what the transactions are for, as has been the case in many other countries, notably the US.
It is up to individual banks to set their own policies on gambling transactions, and most card issuers have now introduced a specific section in the terms on how they treat gambling transactions.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
- even if you lived in Glasgow
Bookmarks