Chase Credit Card Fraud Department may also be a Fraud

When I get back from the client site on Thursday, after I've flown back into O'Hare and after I've briskly walked through the terminal, and after I've weighed the merits of the cab line vs. the CTA blue line, and after I've decided that the cab line is the better option because I saw that girl get robbed that one time, and after I've gotten into a cab which I always hope is one of the new clean hybrids but usually ends up a crappy Crown Victoria with a broken seat belt, the LAST thing I want is to find out I've been the target of identity theft.

But that's what happened not too long ago.

As the cab pulled out of the termimal, a voice mail notification popped up. It was a message from Chase, my credit card company, telling me they thought I may have had my card stolen. They instructed me to listen to a number of recent charges and call their number if any of them were not made by me.

$10 at a parking garage in Philadelphia...makes sense

$20 at our most frequent Thai takeout place...probably legit

$800 at a Toys R Us in Colorado...hmmm, might want to look into that one

With that, I called the 800 number Chase gave me to their Fraud department.

After a lengthy series of automated prompts, I got through to a nice representative with an unusual accent. Definitely not American, not even fake American. It also wasn't from Bangalore. Sounded like Central or Eastern European. A little like this guy actually...



So let's call her Peggy.

Peggy explained that Chase detecting some unusual charges on my card and wanted to make sure it hadn't been stolen.

Fortunately, I still had the card in my pocket. It was also fortunate that it was my Chase British Airways Visa, which I use for absolutely nothing other than places that won't accept my SPG American Express. So even if the card was stolen, it wouldn't impact any auto-pay setups like the last time I had a card number change, when taking a drive to Atlantic City nailed me for at least 5 toll violations when it couldn't replenish my account.

So, seriously, this Visa card essentially is only used at that Thai place. Just about nowhere else.

So it was surprising when Peggy told me my card had been charged for $800 at a Toys R Us in Colorado, and $400 at a Red Lobster in California. (Note, I may have transposed the dollar values. It could have been $400 at Toys R Us and $800 at Red Lobster, I honestly can't tell which seems less plausible)

I told her those charges were definitely not mine. I couldn't even envision spending $100 at a Red Lobster! I'm pretty sure it's unlimited shrimp for like $12.99! What the hell would 400 get you? Sex with a lobster? Would people pay for that?

Anyway, the point is the charges were NOT legitimate, and Chase was right to flag it.

Peggy explained how the charges would be cancelled and they'd express ship out a brand new card with a new number.

OK, I said, but will you be able to tell me anything about how my card information was stolen? When you guys follow up on it, can you let me know what you find?

The response from Peggy?

"Well, we typically don't investigate these types of incidents. We just replace the card with a new number and issue a new card. Although if you would like to involve the authorities you can certainly direct them to us and we can provide them any details"

So this was the response? Basically a, "Hopefully it doesn't happen again!" type of thing?

I assumed they had dozens of professional credit card theft police! Some kind of advanced fraud detection unit! A SWAT team of hard-bitten veterans itching to take down those thieving Lobster-screwers!

At least, I had assumed, they could've told me what business was the source of the theft (hint: maybe I should stop eating Pad Thai)

Not exactly.

Instead, they didn't seem to give it a second thought. Someone got my information, so they just changed it, case closed.

Frankly, I'm a little underwhelmed. But again, it's a card I barely use, so even if it happens again, the damage would be limited.

Still...odd that Chase didn't seem to care.

Theory on Hollywood Sequels

This past New Years Eve, my wife and I had some friends over for a small celebration. There was a good amount of food, alcohol, and of course, trivia.

Now, if I told you that my wife and I gave a Year In Review style quiz with multiple question types, genres, and answer sheets to our friends, how much would you bet that it was my idea? (Remember, this is the same guy who re-took the SATs for fun)

Like a million dollars right? Well you'd be wrong.

Turns out my wife was really into putting everyone to the test to see which major events they could remember (and by major events, I mean really major. I think we had one question on Osama Bin Laden but four on the various Kardashians)

Anyway, one of the questions was on the Top Box Office Hits of 2011. I got to be a guinea pig for the test beforehand, and I did a terrible job on this question. For whatever reason, I missed a bunch, even though I'm a huge movie fan.

So, when it came time for the answers, I quickly went for the movies I missed, which appear below in rank order.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1
The Hangover Part II
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Fast Five
Cars 2
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Thor
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

When I looked at the list, I was pretty shocked that they were almost all sequels. Everything was the second or third or fourth incarnation of various franchises, with various combinations of pirates, robots, vampires, and apes.

The one exception, Thor, you could argue is also a sequel as it's really just the next in the sequence of Marvel Comics-based releases leading up to the super-huge Avengers film coming up.

That got me wondering, sure we like to accuse Hollywood of a complete lack of creativity (outside figuring out new ways to blow something up or cause a gruesome death), but is that really the case?

One could certainly argue that sequels in and of themselves aren't 'uncreative,' which I would largely agree with. There are tons of sequels which are pretty darn good in their own right (Bill Simmons, for example, argues Beverly Hills Cop II is a better film than the original. Now, that's completely insane, but there are dozens of actual examples)

However, while we can't definitively state that sequels aren't creative, we can use their presence as shorthand. The more Hollywood derives its success from its own established cultural capital, it should at least be a sign that not all their juices are flowing.

So, my question then became, have sequels increased?

Well, take a look at the chart below and you tell me:

Now, this chart illustrates the raw number of sequels that were in the top 10 Box Office Hits for each of the past 31 years. Starting with 1980 (thanks to BoxOfficeMojo.com for the data!), I looked at each year and quickly determined whether they were sequels or not (The presence of the number 2 or 3, or generally anything with Roman numerals helped out quite a bit)

But at first glance, that seems to be a heck of a trend over the last three decades.

The average year in the 80's had ~2 sequels (think Smokey and the Bandit II, or Crocodile Dundee II {Side note: By the way! Did you know that in 1988, Crocodile Dundee II actually grossed more money than the original Die Hard?!? And it wasn't even close, Paul Hogan brought in $109M to Bruce Willis' $83M! What the hell was everyone's problem back then???)

By the time we get to the aughts (00's, still trying to get aughts to catch on but I think it's a losing battle at this point), ~4 movies out of the top 10 were sequels. And if 2011 is any indication, it shows no signs of slowing down.

Now some people might argue that these last few years have been skewed by the popularity of a few mega-series based on recent books (Harry Potter, Twilight) and those gigantic franchises are atypical. However, if we look back at the 80's, there were also a bunch of huge mega-franchises, and while they weren't based on books, I'm not sure we can discount Rocky, Star Trek, and the early chronicles of one Indiana Jones (who's a University of Chicago alumnus btw).

So I don't know that I buy that argument, even if these new films skew more towards children/teens/tweens.

Another idea is that there were just as many sequels then as there are now, it's just they didn't do as well and fell outside my arbitrary cutoff of the top 10. Definitely possible, but seems unlikely, given that a sequel tends to be off the back of a big hit and generally exceeds the performance of its predecessor (Police Academy notwithstanding, I'm fairly certain Mission to Moscow went straight to video)

So what's to explain the over-representation of sequels? A theory:

- Hollywood is going further and further in its effort to launch big mega tent-pole films, the kind that guarantee a big opening weekend, and the best way to guarantee a huge opening weekend is to have a hugely recognizable name/story on the marquee. At the same time, the megastars of the 80's and 90's don't really carry all that much weight anymore. It seems like a big opening is increasingly becoming less about the movie star and more about how many things can explode (I long for the good old days where Arnold would just toss people off a cliff)



Continuing that train of thought, if you're in Hollywood and need to guarantee an opening weekend, and you can't rely on a megastar (either because they're too expensive, they're not effective, or they look stupid in tights), then what do you need to get people in the door?

A sh*t-ton of cultural capital, a back-story everyone knows, everyone's familiar with, and everyone has at least a passing interest in.

There may be lots of other factors as well, stuff like merchandising tie-ins and all that ancillary revenue, but what I do think it comes down to is risk aversion.

If you need to open well to keep your job, then you need as close to a sure thing as possible. And with the notable exception of Pixar, who could put out a movie on anthropomorfic dog crap that I'd go see, no one seems to have earned any credible reputation for original ideas that a mass audience is going to love.

So until that does happen, or until the establishment of some new mega stars (which I'd argue is an impossibility given our always-on media and lack of privacy), get ready for Fast and the Furious 6 and Twilight 9 or whatever.

I'll still see them, but then, I'm mostly in it for the popcorn.

Future of News Follow-up - Associated Press' New Strategy

If you read my previous post on the future and sustainability of news, one of the things I focused on as potentially being more sustainable were longer form analysis and opinion.

Particularly as companies like Narrative Science and others automate information gathering and basic content creation, reporters will have to focus on adding-more value to whatever they're writing.

Well, the Associated Press recently put out a memo to its staffers talking about it's 'New Distinctiveness' (Link to Article)

It's essentially a memo outlining how the Associated Press will battle for relevancy, and it hits on a lot of themes I was talking about. Below is an excerpt (emphasis mine)

Let's start with something that’s obvious but worth laying out plainly: That "next cycle" we speak of so often in The Associated Press is now. Not 12 hours from the first breaking news, not even six hours, but one, maybe two hours from it -- and maybe even faster than that.

This is hardly something that we’re just waking up to. But it is accelerating by the week. As we look around the media landscape in recent months, over and over we’re seeing the same thing. AP wins when news breaks, but after an hour or two we're often replaced by a piece of content from someone else who has executed something more thoughtful or more innovative. Often it's someone who has taken what we do (sometimes our reporting itself) and pushed it to the next level of content: journalism that's more analytical, maybe a fresh and immediate entry point, a move away from text, a multimedia mashup or a different story form that speaks more directly to users.

Sound familiar?

Some of their specific examples of new strategies are very much along the same lines as to what I was saying:

Thematic Thinking. We're going to be much more aggressive in identifying themes off the news -- angles the world is thinking about -- and digging deeper. Unique and compelling entry points to stories are key here, and those can’t be done on breaking-news autopilot. Many of these new approaches will be infused into the main story on a news event across platforms; that’s as important as creating new stories to stand alone.

Journalism With Voice. We're going to be pushing hard on journalism with voice, with context, with more interpretation. This does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism. It does not mean that we're venturing into opinion, either. It does mean that we need to be looking for ways to be more distinctive and stand out in the field -- something our customers need and want. The why and the how of the news are as crucial as the who, what, when and where.

Going Deeper? Breaking-news autopilot? More interpretation?

Agreed. Interesting to see how they'll manage that.

Future of News

I read a great blog post on the future of news today from Kris Hammond, the CTO of Narrative Science. His thoughts echoed a lot of things I’ve been thinking about and while he said a lot of it better than I can, it made me think that is was long past due for getting some of those thoughts down on digital paper.

Hammond’s main ideas are focused on the future of news, and what I’ve generally been terming ‘information ubiquity’ to anyone who’ll listen.

When I say ubiquity, I’m referring to the idea that information is becoming as readily available as the air we breathe. Technology is allowing us to advance to such a point where facts are increasingly available on a near-instantaneous basis from all kinds of resources. Any basic piece of information, say the capital of Minnesota, is no more than a couple keystrokes, clicks, or words (thanks Siri) away.

One of the points Hammond makes, is that this progression, through successive advancements in technology, will continue to build our repository of facts/data.

“…language understanding and data extraction systems are improving to a point at which much of the information that is currently human readable yet impenetrable to computers will be itself transformed into data; data that can be used as the driver for the generation of new narratives. This means that textual descriptions of events, government meetings, corporate announcements, plus the ongoing stream of social media will be transformed into not just machine readable, but machine understandable representations of what is happening in the world.”

In short, computers will “understand” more and more about the way we communicate, such to turn things into hard data. Think of articles we read, conversations we have, presentations we deliver, these things will start to be just as interpretable to a computer as any other binary code. That fact base I mentioned, capitals of Minnesota and such, will continue to get much bigger.

It’s not only going to get bigger, but more immediately accessible and transparent. Partially aided by the same technology we use today (e.g., manual searching), but also by new technologies Hammond alludes to when he describes ‘the generation of new narratives’

All of this is very exciting…unless you’re in the news business…in which case this may be terrifying.

I say that because facts and basic information are the core tenets of standard objective journalism coverage. In undergrad as a reporter for the Daily Collegian, the routine was pretty simple, go to an event, open your eyes, and write down what happens. Maybe talk to a couple other folks there. Summarize the key points. It’s a role focused on rote gathering and processing of information (Note: this is why I didn’t like reporting and enjoyed being a columnist much much more)

But that rote gathering and processing is what can be drastically reduced in a world where many of those events can now be interpreted systematically by advanced software. It’s already happening in some areas where the content processing can already be automated (basic sports game reports built off of box scores, corporate earnings release previews built off financial data). It’s not hard to imagine these types of reports creating standard, objective summaries for all kinds of events.

But there are a few reasons why I think journalists don’t have to get quite so upset. Although I do think such developments will force a complete realignment in the way we think about journalism, the industry will not go away completely. There are some items, which I expand on below, that I think will become all the more critical for anyone who aspires to a career in journalism or any writing with higher professional standards and paychecks than this blog.

Curation will still matter

Facts are becoming more easily gatherable, storable, and reportable. There’s no way to slow that down. However, with newer and easier ways to gather and report on facts, that’s not just going to create a couple new articles a week, it’s going to create an avalanche of information (if you don’t think things are bad now, just wait!).

Local papers which might run a couple high school baseball recaps might now have the ability to auto-generate five pages of stories including all the local high school games, little league games, and 3-year old T-ball games (In which the lead might be: “The Dolphins defeated the Pirates by a score of 5-4. Jacob Marshall scored the tying run when his ground ball to second base was interrupted by a butterfly that distracted the entire Pirates infield. Juice boxes and orange slices were had by all.”)

So if such articles become easily creatable, you’ll suddenly be faced with more and more of them competing for your attention. Someone’s going to have to help you out, unless you want to quit your job to drink from the media fire hose full-time (a move I’ve often contemplated)

There is absolutely a role for someone to help decide which articles are the most critical for your attention. Taking it back a step, there’s also a critical role for someone to decide which of these easily gathered facts are worthy of an article to even fight for your attention. In my view, that’s a role that could potentially be filled by a human filter.

With that said, there are technology solutions which can also get the job done. The first counter-argument to this type of role would be that we’ll source all our information from our social media channels (e.g., friends on Twitter, Facebook shares). Companies like Flipboard are already trying to build experiences that allow users to get the media they want before they specifically ask for it. So certainly there will be competing forces trying to deliver the information you need/want, but I feel as though there will continue to be a need for curators who aggregate the fire hose and bottle it for you.

Long form and analysis will still matter

Some information is becoming relatively standardized, and more pieces traditionally within the purview of the journalist will continue to shift. Speeches from a public figure, which today are covered by reporters, may one day be recapped automatically (I look forward to someday when a presidential candidate creates a series of system errors in the natural language interpretation software through either making up words or stringing together illogical phrases)

But while these pieces of data become more collectible, it’s hard to imagine a software program creating the traditional longer stories. Feature stories which come from finding sources, interviewing them, and asking the right questions. Investigative journalism, which should be greatly enhanced with increased data availability, should obviously still have a home. That’s not to say data mining technology or advanced narrative creation can’t be created to do it, but for the time being, I don’t think computers are ready for prime time. If anything, programs to create basic content should free up more resources which can allow for deeper investigations, and more effort around hunting for really impactful news.

Unless there’s a Woodwardbot and Bernsteintron in some technology company’s lab right now.

Having an opinion will still matter (as long as you can entertain)

The last way to keep a position in journalism is the most obvious, and the one that stretches further away from what journalism is at its core. It’s really just about being an entertaining writer and offering something no one else can.

One of the clear trends over the last few years in traditional print media (at least that which I’m reading), is a progression towards more opinion and personalized writing styles. This happens beyond print, as any viewer of ESPN can tell you. Writers, at least those that develop consistent followings, are those which cultivate their own personal style and in many cases, more opinion-based takes on their field.

If you look at regional sports coverage, I’ve noticed a huge shift in the reporters’ tone and styling as they’ve moved to do more blogging and tweeting. The game recap, that is, telling me exactly what happened, has become pretty irrelevant to me, but I do look to these trusted sources for their opinion on what happened. I also like interacting with them via Twitter, live chats, etc.

That builds my relationship with them as a fan, and I’ll continue to seek them out for what they have to say.

Of course, one could argue this has some seriously negative ramifications for sports writing as a whole. In particular, an encouragement towards attention-grabbing statements, inflammatory rhetoric, and basically the Stephen A. Smithing of the content. To which I’d say, I think that ship has already sailed.

Summation

While the advancement of technology has brought an end to many occupations, the buggy whip maker, the elevator operator, and others, recent development should not suggest that reporters will make a similar path to extinction.

True, the type of work may change, and the profile of those who belong in the field may shift as technology becomes a greater tool in the media arsenal. But just because technology will soon allow for the codification of many forms of information you once could only understand by being there, there will still be plenty of original thoughts to have, and words to write.

Of course if that’s not true, you can always start a blog. I guarantee your mom will read it.

Does a bear sh*t in the woods? An ape sure does!

Last week my wife and I took a short trip out to Southern California for a few days. In part, to celebrate my 30th birthday, and in part, because we had free Starwood resort nights to use thanks to my time in Arkansas at the Aloft Rogers.

Although we'd been to Southern California twice in the past 6-8 weeks for two weddings, we ended up scheduling a third trip for the free resort nights. That might seem odd, but here was our thought process.

Step 1: We have free resort nights, what are the nicest hotels we can go to?

Step 2: Now, which of all those locations have the cheapest air fare?

Step 3: Thanks to Virgin America, flights from Chicago to LAX are much cheaper than Phoenix, Colorado, basically everywhere.

Step 4: Confirm free resort nights at the St. Regis Monarch Beach California.

So we were going going, back back, to Cali Cali. No qualms from me, I was happy to stay at a nice resort with what would hopefully be some nice weather.

I'd say we definitely got pretty good weather, and managed to squeeze in a ton of stuff into a short trip.

First things first, we hit a local hole in the wall for lunch

OK, so you may have heard of In-N-Out burger, but my wife had never been there. And even though I was still looking to cross other fast food outlets off my hit list (I'll get you someday Jack in the Box!), we found a spot not too far from our hotel.

A major highlight of our trip was heading down to San Diego, which we had never been to and was only ~1.5 hours from our hotel. We didn't have a ton of time there, and there were no baseball games (as I was hoping the stadium would implode on Tony Larussa, Pujols and the rest of those St. Louis tea partiers)

So we went to the zoo instead, and it was far and away the best zoo I've ever been to. Maybe it was the fact that I haven't been to a real zoo since my poor mom used to take all four of us kids to the Philadelphia zoo and probably question some of her life choices. But the San Diego Zoo was a ton of fun.

We got to see tons of animals, some of which I didn't know existed and most of which I've never even eaten.

There were lots of good exhibits, although I do think they dedicated a lot of space to birds. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like birds at a zoo are kind of a waste. Rationale:

- They're small
- They don't do much
- They need large completely fenced in cages because they'll almost definitely try to fly away

I think when zoo builders are planning out their exhibits, they must be like:

Zoo Builder 1: "OK, this will be great, we'll have the gorilla enclosure here, and then 300 feet down will be the giraffes"

Zoo Builder 2: "What do we put in between?"

Zoo Builder 1: "F*ck, who cares? Throw another bird cage in there"


No one gets excited for birds (exceptions made for penguins, flamingos, and perhaps emus, obviously).

Anyway, despite the overload of small children, the zoo was full of wonder and mystery. Exhibit A, this sign:

I kind of wanted to see that happen, but I didn't bring a poncho.

Of course, that's not to say we didn't see some serious raw stuff.

We saw a rhino try to get his mate to get down in the biblical sense. At least I'm hoping it was a mate, but maybe it was just a casual friend from work or another rhino he met on craigslist. Regardless, this one rhino wanted to get into it like a Seaside Heights guido after a couple red bull and vodkas. It was pretty hilarious, especially watching him get shot down by the girl rhino who was more interested in sleeping (see, they're just like us!)

After that, other animals found it pretty hard to top the rhino. The poor zebra across the way, he was depressed, I'm assuming from having to look at that monster all day and feel inadequate.

But the rhino, with his massive wang, was no match for the show stopper of the day. The last animal we checked out, and as it turned out, the one with the most hilarious show. I'm talking about the gorilla cage. We wandered past as the zoo was closing, and saw the biggest one, the alpha male I'm assuming. He was just hanging around, likely killing time until the zoo closed and he could head back in and catch up on his DVR'd episodes of 2 Broke Girls.

But I think he saw us and wanted to give us something to remember. Either that or he has recently been to a Jamba Juice



What a fun trip we had.

Found my Friends, Even the Adulturous Ones

I upgraded to the new iPhone operating system last week, after a lengthy wait when the whole world tried to do it at the same time.

The new iOS has some pretty cool new additions, most of which should add some incremental value to my phone, but largely not earth-shattering.

However, one of the newest Apps for the phone might be earth-shattering for my life if I can play my cards right.

Maybe, just maybe, I can start to persuade my wife to get an iPhone, thanks to the new Find My Friends app.

If you don't know anything about Find My Friends, it's the app that let's you geo-locate your friends who also have iPhones, and place their approximate location on a map.

A great advancement in technology for the obsessives, suspicious, and introverted among us.

The app essentially eliminates the need to actually talk to people to find out where they are, and completely destroys the boundaries between friends that Facebook didn't already obliterate.

Want to hang out with a friend but they're ditching your calls? Find Your Friend on the iPhone and just show up to what will assuredly be an awkward encounter.

This app creates a new threshold in friend-dom, or the friend hierarchy, or levels of friendship. Because you'll really have to be friends with someone to give them your geo-location data. Want to be Facebook or LinkedIn connections with someone? No big deal, you're not obligated to share any personal details with them.

But if my understanding of Find My Friends is correct, if that person's your friend, you're giving them the ability to...

a) Drop by a bar where you're hanging out

b) Know exactly when they can drop by your apartment because you'll be there

c) Know exactly when they can drop by your apartment because you WON'T be there, and they can steal all your stuff

Requesting a Find My Friends friendship with someone would be the true test of how much you want that person in your life, because there doesn't seem to be any in-between. Either they know where your phone is at all times, or they can never find you. Doesn't leave a lot of room for pseudo-friends and acquaintances.

With that said, I'm really hoping for some interesting mash-ups with other technology services.

With TripAdvisor - Find My Fellow Travelers

With Craigslist - Find My Casual Encounters

With the State Sex Offender Registry - Find My Child Predators

I'm also looking forward to more stores about people using Find My Friends for unforeseen purposes. We've already had the first cheating spouse caught, so I'm looking forward to the first robbed apartment while they were out story, the first guilt established by geo-location at the scene of the crime story, and the first stalker found me now I'm suing Apple story. Remember to read your user agreements.

But anyway, with all that said, I'm kind of excited for Find My Friends. Because, while I can't think of a lot of people who would really care where I am, I know with 100% certainty that my wife cares a lot.

And since she knows I don't go anywhere without my phone, she would definitely be interested in using that app (and not in a 'I need to check on my loser husband way, more of a 'Which state is my husband in now and can we confirm his plane didn't go down in a massive fireball' kind of way).

Find My Friends offers that opportunity, and maybe that could convert her.

Then maybe she'd have her own phone and would stop playing games on mine!

First Use of Square

I had my first experience with Square last night.

No, not the shape, I think it's safe to say I've been comfortable with squares ever since they passed me through nursery school. It's also not a new trendy bar where all the glasses/chairs/menu items are squares and there's a whole irony thing about being in a cool place named 'Square' (note to self: file that under foolproof business ideas for later)

I was referring to the mobile payment system designed and built around processing credit card payments via smartphone.

I was making the weekly run from O'Hare to downtown Chicago, and had already recovered from the absurd cab line and stop and go traffic this city has to offer. As we arrived at my destination, I went on full auto pilot for the payment, starting to push the buttons for credit card on the little terminal in the backseat.

I've gotten used to ignoring most cab drivers when I reach for the credit card, because 90% of the time they're trying to explain why their machine is broken or why they'd prefer to take me to a cash machine or some other elaborate reasoning not to use plastic.

Because of that, I didn't notice initially when the cab driver started waving his iPhone at me.

It took me a second to realize what the heck he was up to. But then I noticed the little white dongle (I believe that's an official term), plugged into the phone.

It was a Square card swiper, and although I had read all about them, I had never actually gotten to use one before.

It was surprisingly simple. I ran my card through the little dongle, and then (the one weird part), signed my name on the phone with my finger. That would probably be a little weird for most people, but I was helped by the fact that my signature is a mess anyway. Using one finger instead of all five and a pen wasn't that much of a quality drop-off.

It was pretty seamless, and then I got to decide whether I wanted my receipt as a text or via email. Either way, I wondered if this guy was going to end up with a record of my phone number/email address somewhere. I also wondered what the heck I would do with a text message receipt. Not sure how I'd send that in to the people in our expense department, so I opted for the email.

As long as our expense department doesn't look at the receipt and assumed I'm making it up, I'll officially be on board with this Square thing. Especially if it means more cab drivers will start asking me to swipe a credit card instead of pretending it's not an option