Is this even legal? How?

[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]

Originally Posted by mbossman2 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.

Originally Posted by mbossman2 ... 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.

Originally Posted by mbossman2 ... 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...

Originally Posted by mbossman2 ... 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.

Originally Posted by mbossman2 ... 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?

Originally Posted by mbossman2 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.