Skip to main content

View Diary: F*ck Convenience (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why does it have to be either or? (6+ / 0-)

    When I alerted the bank to the checks and they looked at them they were indeed embarrassed to have put them through because it made them look stupid. Besides looking stupid, they're going to have to eat that $1100. But in the meantime I had to take my time to go down there twice and talk to the police, and explain to my father's legitimate creditors why he doesn't have the money to pay his bills this month.

    So, yeah, I think somebody should have to actually look at the checks before they pay them.

    Poor man wanna be rich Rich man wanna be king And a King ain't satisfied Till he rules everything

    by jetfan on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:28:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And compare the signature too? Shit (0+ / 0-)

      happens.  Deal with it and move on.  It ain't a perfect world.  

      Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

      by thestructureguy on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:52:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it were cheaper for the bank... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick

      ...to hire someone to look at all of the checks, instead of taking a couple-of-thousand-dollar hit on every thousandth or ten-thousandth one, be assured that they would do it.

      I have absolutely no doubt that they've done the actuarial calculations and decided that "looking stupid" and eating a thousand or two bucks every so often (which they could possibly recover if they catch the identity thief) is less expensive than inspecting every single check.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:04:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A couple of reasons (0+ / 0-)

      First, there probably are not enough people to read all those checks.

      Second, e-checks and other EFT don't even have signatures.  This is not going to change.  And many checks are now electronically presented; larger companies have done this for a long time but now an ATM will directly scan a check and you can even do it from a smartphone.

      The fraud problem is that there's no incentive for U.S. banks to handle debit fraud because there are few regulations that require them to deal efficiently with it.  This is one of the reasons banks push debit cards.  Credit card fraud is subject to the fair credit reporting act, which limits your liability to $50.  As a result, banks have very sophisticated automated algorithms to detect fraud.  And most credit cards have a zero-dollar liability limit, with a somewhat stricter time schedule than what is mandated by law.  The intent is to get people to report missing credit cards quickly.

      The payment card and ACH systems in the US are stupid.  First, set up an system of encrypted PINs on electronic checks.  These get checked back to a central server.  Payment cards should have embedded chips, but rather than encrypting the pin on-card as is done in Europe and elsewhere, validate it to a central server.  And just eliminate paper checks, which banks don't want to do, anyway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site