Is this even legal? How?

[TwoRails]

I tried a little experiment today. I wanted to "cash" a check I received from an major international company (a refund) the old fashion way: cash it for cash.

The bank wanted all kinds of crap, and they wanted to finger print me.

How can a bank, or any private company, require such a thing?? What is their authority?

I asked the bank manager how they can do that legally, and she was clueless and I was given the standard, typical answer of "that's just how we do things here."

Anybody know if / how this can be legal?

[HAL9000]

Interesting to say the least.... and so what are they matching prints to?

[blue60007]

Interesting indeed...my bank needs your account number - incase it's an invalid check they can get you for the $$...

Haven't tried that with an international check though..

[bucksfanjimj]

Hal, the bank will turn the fingerprint and check over to the local authorities if the check turns out to be fraudulent. The banks have been doing the fingerprint thing for awhile now. Some banks will hold onto the funds until the check clears and then you will have to go back to the bank to claim your money. I went through a similar experience when I needed to cash a check from my 401k plan. I was given the first $100 and had to wait ten days for the check to clear before I could have the rest.

[Force Flow]

What bank did you go to? A bank you do business with, the bank that issued the refund, or somebody else entirely?

[trulad]

My wife works in the legal compliance department of a large bank and you would be surprised at the scams they run into. Also, all overseas transactions are carefully watched to make sure the money isn't going to a terrorist organization or is being "laundered" She is bound by law to report all suspiscious transactions to the FBI,after which they take over. Since 911 we can't be too careful.
trulad

[novie]

Utilizing the services of a bank is not a right, it is a privilege, so they can do it under their own authority. Typically if you do regular business with a bank as an account holder or depositor they wont require such stringent means as fingerprinting.

[HAL9000]

I can see holding the funds until it clears... but fingerprinting??? That's gone too far.

[Panama Red]

Maybe the hooded sweatshirt, dark glasses and fake moustache gave them reason to doubt the checks authenticity! Ya gotta clean up yer act, TR!:D :p

[glfredrick]

Here at the Kroger stores in Louisville, KY, you have to be fingerprinted and registered to use the services of the customer service desk in the grocery stores... Welcome to Big Brother...:mad:

[mairving]

More info (http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=guest_room_fingerprints1) on the fingerprinting thing. I noticed that my bank does it too but only for non account holders.

[Lespaul20]

My bank does the same for non account holders also.

[Negeva]

Blimey, that hasn't started over in the UK - yet. I can understand some measures to help combat terrorism and fraud but treating all of your customers as either potential fraudsters or terrorists isn't too comforting. So much for the innocent before guilty approach.

Be interesting to know what they do with all the prints that aren't on any national criminal databases; do they delete them, use them when investigating other crimes and so on.

[David M]

There is so much fraud out there such as fake ID's that I do not blame the banks for getting some sort of positive identification. Although not impossible, it's real hard to fake a fingerprint. If you do not like a bank getting positive ID on you then go elsewhere.

Feel fortunate they are not asking for a DNA sample. :)

[TwoRails]

To catch up on the above a little: I have no idea what they are matching the prints up to... I asked what they wanted it for and do with it, and all I got was "we discard it" after the check clears. I asked, since the check's bank was the one I was at, if the check was any good. They said yes, so I said then you don't really need my prints, then, do you? I got the "it's just the way we do biz" response...

As far as "waiting" for the check to clear, it should be "instantaneous" due to the new check-cashing law that allows a business to cash your personal check just like it was a debit (cash) card. So why don't the consumers get to utilize the same law?? If the check was good, and at the same bank, it should be instantaneously debited to the company's account and I get the cash. Period and simple... but it's not.

I was in a differ part of my small town and used a different branch for my little experiment. Yes, I could have easily ID'd myself as a customer, but then that would negate my experiment on how cashing a check works now-a-days. The company's check is with the same bank.

Oh, I not saying there isn't a lot, too much fraud, but I have a ton of ID. Why not take photos? The the fraud folks could be easily spotted visually that way! Having just a print means you have to get another and then match them up, etc...

A privilege?? I don't think so. I pay for a service, just like getting a car repaired. It's not a privilege to go to the dealer to have your car fixed, and it's not a privilege to pay for banking services --- not to mention they make a ton of money investing my money they are holding for me. Are they paying me for the privilege of holding my money??

Yes, I agree that fingerprinting is going to far. Hence this thread :)

Dang PR!! I didn't know that was you in the corner of the bank!!! LOL I'll wear something nicer next time (and BTW, that not a fake mustache, I just have to trim it up some :eek: )

I think I'd find a different grocery store if I had to get printed to use their service...

I'll have to check out your link later, mairving: thanks! I'm behind schedule on a few things right now.

LOL ! Ya, getting DNA is probably just around the corner for the banks I'd bet. They do it on criminal already if I'm not mistaken.

[David M]

The fingerprint probably acts as more of a deterrent than anything else. Obviously if someone wants to commit fraud but has never been fingerprinted, then fingerprinting will have no effect. But if I were considering committing a crime and someone wanted to take my fingerprints beforehand...then would I go ahead and do the crime? It would be pretty stupid to go ahead with the crime.

Come on....how many in here have never been fingerprinted? I am willing to bet it is a small minority. I had to get fingerprinted for my Merchant Mariners license. Worrying about someone getting your prints is like worrying about your face going on your drivers license. In fact, in CA you have to provide a finger print to get your license renewed. Big deal. The state and federal government and corporations, all with large databases, know a lot more about us than most people imagine....or have access to that information by paying for it. If you look around the internet anyone can purchase information on anyone else. We are not anonymous at all. Is this legal?...Yes. Is this ethical?...No. But it is a fact.

Don't think your bank could not purchase a copy of your fingerprints or any other information about you if if they wanted that information.

[TwoRails]

Agreed with most of that, David M, and yes I've been printed in the past. I understand that government agencies have the legal authority to print people, as they are the ones that make the laws. So back to one of my original questions: by what authority does a private (or public, but you get the idea) company have to finger print people? Now, from above, I'm finding out grocery stores do it to!?! When will the car dealers from my example above start finger printing folks?

[sdkfz]

The problem with cashing the check instantly is having the check ‘be good on its face' and having money in the account are not the same thing. Good on face includes- is the signature actually the account holder's/ authorized signor?

Say I stole a check from the middle of your current batch in your check book (a common strategy BTW) you may not know the check was missing for some time and then even not realize it was stolen right away.... "Strange I skipped a check # here…let’s see I wrote one to Bob then...oh well... I'll have to check on line to see if it cashed..."

In the mean time I have written it up and gone into the bank and submitted it. The teller looks at the sig and compares it to original. ... close enough (it should be cause I got a copy of it from the imprint of your last signature- hint - never sign the check in the book remove it then sign... anyway back to the bank...teller checks balance covers and cashes it. Sometime later you start getting bounce notices / check on line and investigate, submit an affidavit of forgery. In the mean time I am gone....so is the money. You get the stolen money back since you signed the affidavit, but what about the bank?

I have been in banking since 1984... started as a teller...been robbed at gun point, had fake money given, received forged checks, had to deal with employee theft.. if only they applied themselves to honest work....

[kstatefan40]

Banks around here do it for non-account holders. I don't see too much of a problem with it personally, but if someone were to clone it, it could be a problem, I suppose.

[David M]

The problem with cashing the check instantly is having the check ‘be good on its face' and having money in the account are not the same thing. Good on face includes- is the signature actually the account holder's/ authorized signor?

Say I stole a check from the middle of your current batch in your check book (a common strategy BTW) you may not know the check was missing for some time and then even not realize it was stolen right away.... "Strange I skipped a check # here…let’s see I wrote one to Bob then...oh well... I'll have to check on line to see if it cashed..."

In the mean time I have written it up and gone into the bank and submitted it. The teller looks at the sig and compares it to original. ... close enough (it should be cause I got a copy of it from the imprint of your last signature- hint - never sign the check in the book remove it then sign... anyway back to the bank...teller checks balance covers and cashes it. Sometime later you start getting bounce notices / check on line and investigate, submit an affidavit of forgery. In the mean time I am gone....so is the money. You get the stolen money back since you signed the affidavit, but what about the bank?

I have been in banking since 1984... started as a teller...been robbed at gun point, had fake money given, received forged checks, had to deal with employee theft.. if only they applied themselves to honest work....

You don't even need to steal checks. There is software available to custom make any sort of check you wish. You enter in the persons name, address, account number, routing number and a few other things, click on the print button, and you have an exact copy of someone else's check. A check itself is no guarantee of any sort of authenticity. If you cannot prove the identification of the bearer of the check then you have absolutely no protection. The banks know this and the best form of verifying the bearer is by fingerprint. Are the banks supposed to take a reactive instead of proactive approach to fraud? Should they only take action after they have been ripped off? I totally understand the banks position on this.

So long as our society continues to deteriorate where there is more and more fraud then businesses will have to take a harder and harder stance against fraud..and we all end up suffering by having to go through more and more hassles in order to conduct our regular lives. Point the finger of blame at the fraudsters and not the businesses.

[TwoRails]

sdkfz, I'm glad you weren't shot! One of my points is that "they" (virtually any business) can cash my checks (almost) instantaneously because of the Check 21 Act. Yes, I understand that 'face' and cash in the account are two different things, but a fingerprint will not stop someone from getting the cash even if it was fraud. That's just a security blanket so banks can prosecute the perpetrator. Why is Check 21 a one way street....

[EzyStvy]

Not real sure what Check 21 has to do wth anything in this thread....

The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (or Check 21 Act) is a United States federal law (public Law 108-100) enacted into law October 28, 2003 by the 108th Congress. It took effect one year later, on October 28, 2004. The law allows the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version, thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document.

Consumers are most likely to see the effects of this act when they notice that certain checks are no longer being returned to them with their monthly statement even though other checks are still being returned. Another side effect of the law is that it is now legal for businesses to use a computer scanner to capture images of checks and deposit them electronically, a process known as remote deposit.


"I tried a little experiment today"-> What was the experiment about? Was there some goal other then to get cash?

Aren't you proud of your bank for good security so they can keep their costs down which enables them to not pass these costs onto You?

[novie]

i once worked as a bank teller and caught a few people with fake checks (in an urban branch it happens a lot). actually at one time there was a string of people bringing in the same check that looked totally clueless when the cops arrived. while we did not fingerprint, there are reasons to take these measures.

with the greater resolutions and storage/compression available, it does become a bit of a privacy issue - you may not know it but images of all checks written on an account are scanned when processed in the back of the house and can be referenced by check # amount and viewed, hopefully not by anyone that shouldnt :)

as for the 'automatic' electronic transfers, they are a stopgap. afaik, the actual check still goes through processing and verification, the standard 2-3 days and if not verified the money goes back the other way. i have seen account holders use the funds they see in their account only to have the deposited check bounce, stacking up overdraft fees.

[TwoRails]

Not real sure what Check 21 has to do wth anything in this thread....

"I tried a little experiment today"-> What was the experiment about? Was there some goal other then to get cash?

Aren't you proud of your bank for good security so they can keep their costs down which enables them to not pass these costs onto You?Gosh, EzyStvy... There's a lot in this thread that does not directly relate to the question(s) I asked, which is what give them legal authority?? Just rolling over and taking it doesn't fit either, but this is "general discussion" ...

Here's a similar question: why do insurance companies want your social security number to give you an online quote? It's the same question only different. You'll now find TV commercials for a certain company stating they don't need it. Smart business move as they got a ton of prospective customer going online for quotes that the "other guys" lost out on.

Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.

[mairving]

Gosh, EzyStvy... There's a lot in this thread that does not directly relate to the question(s) I asked, which is what give them legal authority?? Just rolling over and taking it doesn't fit either, but this is "general discussion" ...

Here's a similar question: why do insurance companies want your social security number to give you an online quote? It's the same question only different. You'll now find TV commercials for a certain company stating they don't need it. Smart business move as they got a ton of prospective customer going online for quotes that the "other guys" lost out on.

Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.
Most insurance companies use the SSN to check your credit. Their studies indicate that people with bad credit are higher risk and so will have higher premiums. They say that you will save money if you have good credit. What they really mean is that you will pay more if you have bad credit.

[trulad]

i think the fingerprints could be taken to the next level and used as ID for an ATM machine. They can steal your card and PIN number,but not your fingerprints. Your money would be much safer. Actually, it's a shameful society that forces us to take such measures. Honesty seems to be on the endangered lst.
trulad

[bucksfanjimj]

What bank did you go to? A bank you do business with, the bank that issued the refund, or somebody else entirely?


I took the check to my bank for cashing. The check was issued by an out of state bank. However that bank is equally as large as mine. They just don't have a physical prescence here in Ohio. Plus the check was for a very large sum of money.

[sdkfz]

sdkfz, I'm glad you weren't shot!

Most displays of a weapon are a scare tactic fortunately. Still a freaky experience.

[backithink]

my bank will ask for a finger print if i am cashing a personal check and out of state checks.... when i asked why... its just incase the check comes back "stolen" they have exact proof that you were the one who cashed it.... even stores that cash checks here will print you.... its no biggie i guess... not much i can do about it... i want my money and if i have to give someone my finger print so be it... i am not a criminal so i dont have any current or future issues i need to worry about hiding from

[EzyStvy]

Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.

Learning to Not sweat the little things is much easier..

Course, if the bank got to keep ten percent of ALL checks they cash as a fee, then they could afford to loosen up their security. Could be an expensive price to pay for our freedom...


God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

[peekaboo]

i wanted to buy a pack of gum at the local 7-eleven and they insisted on implanting a chip under my skin event though i was paying cash.

*note: the above story is totally false.

[rjfvillarosa]

Feel fortunate they are not asking for a DNA sample. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6980188.stm

In the UK you cannot cash a cheque unless it is drawn on your own account, you must pay all "third party cheques" as they are known into your account.

[mbossman2]

my wife ran into this for the 1st time. 2 forms of ID and a fingerprint.

we could have deposited the check in our bank and waited for it to clear but if it bounced we'd've been zapped with a bounced check fee.

[Brad the best]

i have never been fingerprinted in my life so they wouldn't really have anything to compare it to , unless it was done when i was a new born .

but i live in canada eh .

[mbossman2]

I have been fingerprinted several times (happens when you work for a "national association" bank here in the USA and once again for work with the federal government)...ditto for my wife (she too worked for banks).

I think they do it as they figure that if you are passing a hot check then this is probably not your debut at this sort of thing.

I can tell you one thing: I will not bank with that institution (Wachovia)

[David M]

I have been fingerprinted for my Coast Guard license and another security clearance. It does not bother me that banks want to discourage fraud by doing this. I have nothing to hide.

This whole issue about fingerprints is much ado about relatively nothing. Everyone who has ever been arrested has been fingerprinted, whether they were later found innocent or guilty of a crime. As has everyone who has gone in the military, as has anyone who applied for any sort of high security position etc has been fingerprinted. The state of California now requires a fingerprint for a drivers license renewal. Have any of these people had their civil rights been violated by being fingerprinted?....No.

A bank that has less fraud can probably better afford to have lower fees as well. Who pays for bank fraud?..the customer ultimately.

[ghost2003]

A privilege?? I don't think so. I pay for a service, just like getting a car repaired. It's not a privilege to go to the dealer to have your car fixed, and it's not a privilege to pay for banking services --- not to mention they make a ton of money investing my money they are holding for me. Are they paying me for the privilege of holding my money??

Yes it is a privilage. They are private institutions and can choose who will be their customers and on what terms. They don't have to accept you as a client.

There's a lot in this thread that does not directly relate to the question(s) I asked, which is what give them legal authority??

How about the fact that they own and run the service and they can choose to run it the way they want? If they want to use fingerprints for identification it's their right to do so.

[TwoRails]

Yes it is a privilege. They are private institutions and can choose who will be their customers and on what terms. They don't have to accept you as a client....Do you consider it a privilege to have your car worked on? You pay them. Or a privilege to shop at your local grocery store when there are 1/2 dozen in the same area? A privilege is something granted to me that I don't want to mess up. Driving is a privilege. Me paying for a direct service is Not a privilege. I have to use roads to get to the bank, but I don't have to use that bank, or any bank. I could easily add more but then we can't get political here.

The second comment is out of context and I don't have time to dig thru the posts right now... sorry.

So, in a friendly spirit, I ask: When you have the "privilege" of having your car repaired or buy groceries, do you feel they have the right to finger print you "just because" ???

[David M]

Do you consider it a privilege to have your car worked on? You pay them. Or a privilege to shop at your local grocery store when there are 1/2 dozen in the same area? A privilege is something granted to me that I don't want to mess up. Driving is a privilege. Me paying for a direct service is Not a privilege. I have to use roads to get to the bank, but I don't have to use that bank, or any bank. I could easily add more but then we can't get political here.

The second comment is out of context and I don't have time to dig thru the posts right now... sorry.

So, in a friendly spirit, I ask: When you have the "privilege" of having your car repaired or buy groceries, do you feel they have the right to finger print you "just because" ???

You also have choice...go to a different bank if you do not like it...irrespective of privilege.

[mbossman2]

banks are allowed to obtain whatever level of identification (above a certain level) that they deem necessary to protect themselves.

Like david said you have choices and if you don't like that bank, go to another..there are no less than 20 banks where I live plus the myriad of internet banks plus you don't have to bank exactly where you live.

This would be a completely different discussion if we lived somewhere where there is 1 big, centralized bank and that is the only bank that you can use.

[TwoRails]

Somehow we've strayed, but that's OK with me as this is a ball. My curiousity of what legal means they have, other than "just becasuse" hasn't really been addressed (I still haven't read that link, though..) and somehow it's all about privileges.

Yes, I know I can bank anywhere, and have stated that myself, but that's not the issue, though it's good conversation.

OK, so back on privileges: It's a privilege to have a job: many are without one, so why not pay your boss 10 or 20% for the privilege to keep it??? Now that's a little closer to what I'm talking about. For those that don't know, that was a why of life in America. People didn't put up with it, and didn't roll over and take it, though it took a while to get out of it.

America is now in the habit of rolling over just because it's a cooperation or big business and "just because." I don't promote pirating but people forget we've "been there" with DRM issues before, and it didn't stick. Think VHS and cassettes. Even companies didn't put up with the BS, obviously, as they made the products. Or even when the Moog Synsisizer came out.... boy howdy, every musian in the world was going to be out of a job. That didn't happen, nor did the music industry crumble from folks having a cassette recorder. Movies / Hollywood didn't go out of business because of VHS.

So, beside just being curious, I'm now interesting in why everyone is saying "that's the way it is." When copy protection first came out, people screamed, and copy protect was beaten back almost into extinction. Now, it messes up your personal computer and causes all kinds of trouble, but nobody is speaking with their wallet like they once did and buy the competitors product that didn't have the troubles.

So, getting back to banks (and the like, it's all tied in) why is everyone rolling over and considering it OK to be treated like a criminal, fingerprinting, etc, just because it's possible you are? OK, so I remember the day when you could walk into any bank and cash a check written against the bank with only a driver's license. I also remember when we practiced innocent until proven guilty. Now, all someone has to do is point a finger and then someone's life is ruined. (that'd be a good thread)

No, I'm not venting, just conversing with some friends.

TR

[mbossman2]

It's a privilege to have a job: many are without one, so why not pay your boss 10 or 20% for the privilege to keep it???

you misunderstand the basic, economic premise of a "job".

A "job" is not yours, it is the property of the employer. What you, the individual, own is the labor/knowledge/skill necessary to complete the job. What occurs, on a pure exchange basis, is you exchange your labor/knowledge/skill in exchange for compensation so that the employer can have the job completed which they in turn exchange that product/service for compensation etc etc etc.

which loops back to this:

My curiosity of what legal means they have, other than "just because" hasn't really been addressed (I still haven't read that link, though..) and somehow it's all about privileges.

In this case, in economic terms, the roles are reversed from the commentary listed above: you are "employing" the bank to utilize it's "labor" to perform a "job" for you. if you don't like the job that your "employee" is doing then you do what any good employer does: terminate/sever the relationship and find something or someone to complete your "job" to your satisfaction and level of compensation.

there is no law, to my knowledge, that requires or prohibits a bank from collecting what they deem as proper identification.

I'm now interesting in why everyone is saying "that's the way it is." When copy protection first came out, people screamed, and copy protect was beaten back almost into extinction. Now, it messes up your personal computer and causes all kinds of trouble, but nobody is speaking with their wallet like they once did and buy the competitors product that didn't have the troubles.

Actually people do speak with their wallets, its just that companies react far more quickly than they used to as they have the ability to analyze financial data and receive far more immediate feedback than from years gone by. Of course this is not always the case and sometimes it takes lawsuits to get a company to listen.

So, getting back to banks (and the like, it's all tied in) why is everyone rolling over and considering it OK to be treated like a criminal, fingerprinting, etc, just because it's possible you are? OK, so I remember the day when you could walk into any bank and cash a check written against the bank with only a driver's license. I also remember when we practiced innocent until proven guilty. Now, all someone has to do is point a finger and then someone's life is ruined. (that'd be a good thread)

Again, if you don't like being treated like a criminal at a bank, then don't use them. Cash the check at your bank who, more than likely, will not ask for your fingerprint, just a picture ID if the teller doesn't know you. They'll just cash the check and you take the risk of it bouncing and being charged the fees associated with it. if that risk is unacceptable, then you exchange that risk for certainty and the price you pay for that security is your fingerprint (or dignity). Your choice, your call.

[HAL9000]

Yes it is a privilage. They are private institutions and can choose who will be their customers and on what terms. They don't have to accept you as a client.

How about the fact that they own and run the service and they can choose to run it the way they want? If they want to use fingerprints for identification it's their right to do so.

I don't agree... if they have accepted me as a customer, and I'm paying for a service, then they have no right to fingerprint me unless there was something as such stated in a signed contract when we chose to do business together. Saying a business can do whatever they want to protect their business would also mean than if you go for an interview, they have the right to ask the following;

age, gender (ok, it's not always that obvious), sexual orientation, religion, and political affiliation etc... they would also have the right to do background checks to verify this information. I know here in Canada, you're most definitely not allowed to ask those questions and I highly doubt they are allowed in the US either.

[backithink]

age, gender (ok, it's not always that obvious)


Have alot of people named Pat out there eh? and here on tax forms like the W2 it does ask for age and gender. Yes i know its a goverment thing but still... i agree with pretty much everything both sides have had to say... but the point is whether you like it or not... more and more places are asking for fingerprints to help assist with check cashing fraud... most people dont have a problem with this cause they think that little ink blot is going to protect them from the evils of the world... false thinking....yes... but it makes people feel safe.... and the people who realize its pretty much crap.... Dont use any place that fingerprints you.... You have the right to cash that check anywhere you want.... where you choose is your choice.... if a place decides to print you so be it.... if not great.

[HAL9000]

OK, but isn't that the whole idea of a 5 day hold on the funds? Fingerprinting will only ID the person cashing the cheque, not necessarily identify the person committing the fraud, so the way I see it, it really isn't accomplishing anything... nothing more than a time stamp on the cheque, a time stamp on a video camera showing a photo of the person doesn't accomplish.

I'm actually surprized at the level of acceptance here... no offense to be taken here, but generally, the American public is very quick to scream PRIVACY when it comes to ANY kind of security (yes, I realize that is a generalized statement, but the responses here are far from typical).

[mbossman2]

the 5 day hold is only required on non-local checks (2 business days for local checks) and in either case the 1st $100 must be made available no later than the next business day.

I would like to clarify something: you OWN bank should not be asking for your fingerprint, they already know you and should be recording your account number on the back of the check in case it does go boing, if you go into the bank that the check is drawn against and they aren't your bank then asking for any ID they deem fit makes sense.

[HAL9000]

OK, that I can agree with and in such instance, a hold of some sort should be implemented on all funds until the cheque clears.

[glc]

Are you going to stop using ATM's because they are videotaping every transaction?

[HAL9000]

Nope, don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with cameras in the bank as well... never said I had a prob with either of those.... and realistically, I don't use ATM's that much anyway... I usually get a cash back in either the grocery store or Walmart when I'm doing a transaction which bypasses additional fees for using an ATM that is not for my institution.

[Milliron1]

Having had an entire book of checks stolen when my office was burglarized a few years ago, I have no objection to fingerprinting. Let thirty checks start landing all over your account and spend the next year convincing thirty merchants that you didn't write them and you will advocate summary execution for bad check passers.

I say the bank can do what they want. They pretty much do anyway.

[HAL9000]

OK, but if say I stole the cheques, I write a cheque to somebody, they cash it, the bank fingerprints THEM on a cheque that has YOUR name on it, how does that incriminate ME?

[backithink]

thats where modern police work comes in.... they will investigate it... and frankly the person you wrote the check to is not going to go down for your crime so he will rat you out..... they will then investigate you..... can you get away with it... i am sure...... is the other person screwed possibly....but you cant always assume law enforcment is not going to figure it out..... its the risk you take

[HAL9000]

Sure there are risks involved, but the fingerprinting of that third party does nothing in the investigation except point to an innocent victim that should have taken more precautions themselves.

[Kuch]

Well, at some point it comes down to responsibility. If I write you a check from someone else’s checkbook, why would you try to cash it? If I write you a check and you know I don’t have the money in the account, why would you try to cash it? If you don’t know me at all, why would you even accept a check from me? Personal responsibility comes into play and the person who accepts the check shares some of that responsibility.

[HAL9000]

Exactly... but like I said.. if you accept a cheque from me without knowing who I am or anything, you're right... it's your problem for not being responsible about it, but fingerprinting you doesn't really do anything to find me if you never took any percautions to begin with.

[Kuch]

But it leaves me, the bank, somewhere to start. When the screws are put to the guy who cashed the check, eventually the name of the guy who wrote the check will come out. (in theory)

[HAL9000]

How do you figure that... I stole the cheques from Mr X... I come to you and identify myself at Mr X... I write you the cheque, you cash it... so what is my name?

[Kuch]

If that's the case, then I go after the guy who cashed the check. If he accepted the check from a stranger without any form of ID (which is customary in most places when accepting a check), then he eats his mistake.

Make no mistake, the person who cashes the check can become as much of a victim as the person from whom checks were stolen, but as a financial institution, I'm not going to eat their error. This puts the onus on acceptors of checks to use prudent judgment when doing so.

[HAL9000]

I'm not denying that... but you can see that the fingerprinting really doesn't do anything.

[backithink]

like i said basicly its a false sense of security that make people feel safe.... but you are the only one who can make sure you dont get scammed... yes banks try to help but if the person wants to get around the system they can..... everyone has to be careful..... my checks get stolen i report it... and i check id before i ever take a check from someone i dont know..... ignorant people are the ones who are the prey

[Kuch]

Well about the only way the fingerprint thing comes into play is if I write you a stolen check, then you cash it under an assumed name. In this case, I would probably be in on the scam with you. If your fingerprint isn’t taken and you use a phony name, the bank wouldn’t have anywhere to start when wanting their money. If they have your fingerprint, they can turn that over to the police to find you (assuming you’re in the system). If you’re not in the system, at least elements of the scam can be shared with other banks.

[TwoRails]

you misunderstand the basic, economic premise of a "job". ...You're missing what I was saying about it. Bosses collecting the previldge payback from workers was common place at one time in this country. Not getting political, but it's one reason that unions became necessary back then. But it's the concept that I'm really getting at, which are two: Calling banking a privilege is makes no sense to me what-so-ever, just like it doesn't to you about a job. The main thing, however, is that people didn't put up with that, and work conditions. Yet, John Q Public rolls over much more today than in the past. That's what I'm saying on that particular topic.



... In this case, in economic terms, the roles are reversed from the commentary listed above: you are "employing" the bank to utilize it's "labor" to perform a "job" for you. if you don't like the job that your "employee" is doing then you do what any good employer does: terminate/sever the relationship and find something or someone to complete your "job" to your satisfaction and level of compensation.
...OK, so then banking is NOT a privilege. If having a job is not a privileged (I was being more satirical than not when I said that) then banking is not a privilege for the same reasons, as you point out.



... there is no law, to my knowledge, that requires or prohibits a bank from collecting what they deem as proper identification. ....Now we're back to the original question of simple curiosity. So I gather that no one knows if it is even legal or not...




... Actually people do speak with their wallets, its just that companies react far more quickly than they used to as they have the ability to analyze financial data and receive far more immediate feedback than from years gone by. Of course this is not always the case and sometimes it takes lawsuits to get a company to listen... .IMHO not at all like I've seen before. As I mentioned earlier, software was overall hit pretty hard with people's buying decisions. There were less computer users back then so it made more of an impact. Now, people just buy what the want and don't care about the problems. Look at all the junk software out there that keeps selling and selling. Why? People are buying it.


... Again, if you don't like being treated like a criminal at a bank, then don't use them. ...Ya... that's been covered, but it's not on target to the concept I'm talking about. Like I asked before that nobody answered to: When you utilize your "privilege" to have your car repaired, and they finger print you, when is enough enough? It's Not the example I'm talking about, it's the over all concept. Read HAL's posts about finger printing: it's a good prospective. If you cash a check that was accepted by you in good faith, and it turns out to be "bad," then why should you have to pay for the fraud?

the 5 day hold is only required on non-local checks (2 business days for local checks) ....I know things won't change, but it's still good conversation. That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say everybody just rolls over now-a-days. That's a double standard, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with anything except making money off your money. Banks and business can cash my check and have funds transfered from my account to theirs almost instantly... but why do I / you / anybody have to wait 5 / 7 / 10 days for their money to be transfered into your account? They get away with that because "we" collectively put up with it.

[David M]

The idea of the fingerprint is proactive. It discourages crime. It is not reactive in that it is a fool proof method of identifying someone. We all know it is not foolproof.