ID checks, how well does a fake hold up? Options

[Otaku On Acid]

My players have decided to start using fake SINs which i think is a good idea. However, I figure when Lone Star arrests them and they're running their info there is the possiblity that the fake will be recorded. Are there any rules for this in any of the books, or does anyone have any house rules? I figured a contested roll of the Fake Sin Rating vs. the rating of whatever is doing the check. So like 4 for a traffic stuff, 8 for an arrest, 12 for a deep background check. Any thoughts?

[Kagetenshi]

I think it's just a flat-up verification reader test against a TN equal to the rating of the fake SIN. That seems overly harsh, though… *looks it up again*

Nope, it's an opposed test. You were right. Tie results in further questioning.

~J

[Crusher Bob]

They gave the sample ating of ID checkers in one of the sourcebooks, though nbow I forget which one. I think your ratings for background checks are a bit high, remember that they take both time and money. If you don't have the sourcebooks, take a look at the credstick verification table for the types of ratings to expect.

Maybe 2-4 (depends on resources) for a simple traffic stop, 4-6 for an arrest, with the bigger stuff only being drug out for the really serious stuff (mass murder, etc). Spending 24+ officer hours to check the background of the guy you've got in the drunk tank is not worth the time. Since almost all aresttes are Runners, they are mainly looking for previous criminal records, and stuff which a rating 4 or so check would turn up easily. A rating 6 SIN should be good against anything 'regular'. (High profile/large crimes/cases will probably get a bit more work put into them)

[Kagetenshi]

I believe all credstick verifiers over Rating 3 are nonportable.

~J

[toturi]

Nobody, not even the rules, ever addressed this situation before: What does a real SIN roll when making a test? Like your real real SIN, not the Rating 99 one.

[Sabosect]

A real SIN requires no verification roll for obvious reasons. It is impossible for it to be fake.

[Crusher Bob]

And there is never incorrect data in the computer, and the people keeping real records never screw up, and your name is never confused with some other guys, and the address they have for you is never your old address, and ...

[Kagetenshi]

Roll the verifier and if it doesn't rule-of-1, you pass.

Keep in mind that even if it gets everything about you wrong, it doesn't matter unless it flags you for inspection.

~J

[Jason Farlander]

[toturi]

I think that should exactly be it. A cheap verifier is lousy, so it would be possible to read a real ID as a fake more often. A good verifier wouldn't.

[Jason Farlander]

Let me put it this way: a cheap credstick verifier would then designate one out of every six valid transactions as involving a fake sin. I dont think that would be a reasonable think to expect society at large to simply accept. Furthermore, it means that a rating 1 credstick verifier is *more* likely to accept a rating 3 fake SIN as being real than an actual SIN, and that is retarded.

[toturi]

You get what you pay for. You go to a flea-market/bazaar and get yourself a cheap pirated CD and you are surprised it doesn't work?

[Jason Farlander]

Actually, pretty much any gas station or grocery store would be using a rating 1 verifier; only particularly "swank" businesses would use a rating 2 version. Banks splurge and go with rating 2 or 3 versions - the most secure banks in the world would use a rating 4 verifier. You dont see anything higher than that except in corp/government intelligence agencies.

[Kagetenshi]

If you think that's unreasonable, roll twice the rating for tests against a valid SIN. Still too many false negatives? Increase the multiplier.

Problem solved.

~J

[Otaku On Acid]

A rating 6 fake sin should not be able to fool a bank's verifer. Is there a list anywhere for what level verifier different establishments use? If it really is only a rating 2 or 3 I may need to double or even triple these ratings.

[Sandoval Smith]

[Fortune]

[RangerJoe]

There seems to be some confusion over what exactly a "fake" credstick does. Unlike a "fake ID" that the kids who roam the street outside my office use to get into complicit local bars, a "fake credstick" links to a "real" account/ID/etc. which just happens to belong to someone else (usually a ficticious someone else). For simple transactions, all that a reader should have to do is verify if the name/ID number/account name match (i.e., the noodle kiosk just wants to exchange your nuyen for their noodles). For more exotic transfers at banks and other institutions, more detailed information may be needed (before issuing a loan, or letting you invest in stocks, it might pay to know that a person really is who he claims to be, by making sure the DMV records match the realestate records and the LS permit records). The enhancement in the level of detail gives a "fake ID" a better rating. A higher rated "fake SIN" has its owner show up in more databases, and look more "real."

[ES_Riddle]

[ES_Riddle]

[Ouchies]

getting real ones called fake is like todays currency, sometimes real currency is considered fake by untrained people, its kinda the same.

[Fortune]

[Jason Farlander]

Nono... regardless of how you try to justify it, if the basis for potential rejection of a valid SIN is that there is some minute detail somewhere in your credit history that was misentered by an inept clerk, a more thorough check is going to be more likely to find it. Period. In the 2060s, a cursory (rating 1) check will not ever register a real SIN as being invalid unless there is some decker somewhere deliberately screwing with your data, in which case its a plot device.

As for alternate views on verifier ratings, thats fine. You are free to houserule that if you want, but the numbers I listed are as canon (check out the credstick verifier ratings listed in the tables on this page) as I can manage. And, really, why the hell would most businesses waste their money on superdeluxe verifiers? Fake SINs are neither terribly common, nor are they really that bad for these businesses - they still get their money. I imagine that really ritzy businesses use rating 2 verifiers just as a sort of advertisement for their upperclassity rather than any real benefit they derive from better background checking. The only organizations who should care about fake SINs are banks, credit agencies, and governments - and, surprise! those agencies tend to use higher rating verifiers.

Actually counterfeiting money in the 2060s is nearly impossible - only certified credsticks can be modified in such a way, and they possess rating 12 data encryption. Thats pretty hefty. Furthermore, the TN to notice counterfeit funds is the number of successes generated on a Computer (12) test used to generate them, so even a rating 1 verifier is likely to notice them unless we're talking about a truly god-like decker... and even if the counterfeit money passes that check, its only a matter of time before the banks notice. This is all straight from the SSG.

Fact: the *vast* majority of people using fake SINs are still conducting transactions with real cred, and thats all most businesses would really care about.

[Scarecrow237]

[Voran]

In real life I tend to use my debit card to buy groceries and stuff. So its the card-swipe at the checkout counter. On occassion, the reader gets f-ed up. So I usually have to swipe it again.

Anyhoo, I found the rules referred to in Sprawl Survival G and the BBB to be a little off in regards to readers. In that only on a tie does the reader request more info (Your thumbprint, or whatever). Maybe a houserule that for lower rated readers, on a fail, as well as a tie, it requests more info. Or like a real world example, another swipe.

Granted, a debit card is more like a certified credstick than a registered one.