Seriously, as one of the countries still holding on to the imperial measurement system, are you terribly surprised we have checks? I have a checkbook for one reason: cutting money to my parents when I owe them because I don't carry cash and I can't electronically pay them (my dad refuses to set up PayPal.)
I'm glad you have that info at your fingertips. Most people don't. I just searched all over my bank's website, and even their glossary of financial terms don't explain what "cleared" entails as it's not even in their glossary.
Next, I searched my website to find the checking account agreement. Couldn't find it there. I know I have a copy at home, but most people don't have that after 10+ years of banking at the same bank.
So our original assertion stands: when your only source of information is the word of an employee at the bank who tells you the money is available, and you act upon that information, why is it the individual's fault when the information given to them is wrong?
I'm still at a loss as to how you're suffering from what we're saying. And no one said "cleared overnight". We're saying that if the teller says "oh, that's cleared", and it's not, then it's misleading. Funny how you haven't addressed that part even though we've said it repeatedly.
I'm going to be lazy and assume that the FDIC says what you say it does. I don't have any reason to doubt it.
But you do answer my question with the point that the FDIC's bureaucracy inhibits improvements. I didn't think about the "play by our rules to get our protection" angle of this whole thing. You're right.
As Rose pointed out, the bank disclosures describe "cleared". And if that description and the fact that the teller says "cleared" leads me to believe that it's good, then why should I believe otherwise?
Before this article, I did not know there was a difference between "cleared" and "mostly cleared". So no, I don't "KNOW that is the way the system works."
Whoa whoa whoa... I did not say it was distribution... I merely said I could see the logic they'd use. I agree with V (below), Revi, Chrono, that it's NOT distribution. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I can almost see the logic here. I already guess that some will argue the links themselves are distribution.
However, I would say it's more of a distribution of a distribution. If I'm just pointing to an area where you could break the law, am I liable for you breaking the law when you get there?
Please show where the FDIC prevents the introduction of a system that would electronically validate a check? Last I checked (no pun intended), one could not rely on the "it'll take a few days for my check to clear, so I'll float it" method for paying bills anymore because the check I write hits my bank pretty darned quick.
So again, why can we not have a system that verifies the checks quick enough that a 'hold until verified' isn't so long a time that it slows business down too much?
Does having similar goals mean 'clear links' to you? Wow... so since every for-profit corporation in existence has the similar goal of increasing capital growth, they are all of the same "agenda" as demonstrated by their "clear links"?
Looks like someone's tinfoil hat is slipping a bit there.
And what does Wikipedia have to do with it? Do you mean Wikileaks?
As I just posted in another one below, why is it my fault when my bank says "the money is there" if it's not? If, let's say, Wachoiva takes it on faith that the check is good and grants me that money, that's their decision. If the money shows in my account, I would assume that means Wachovia verified it, got the money, and put it in my account.
Yes, people should be diligent, and too-good-to-be-true usually is... but obviously, there are people who take the banks' word that the money is good.
"When you are a dumbass it is not the bank's fault or the banks responsibility. I do not want to be penalized because you are a dumbass."
Believe me, no one hates being penalized for not being part of the lowest common denominator more than I do. But again, it's a system that's being exploited. Why not fix that? And I did say "as long as it doesn't hamper legitimate business or infringe upon rights..."
And why should it be my fault if my bank says "the funds are there" when they're not?
The point here is that it is the banking side we're considering. Why does it take that long to validate the check? Why are we told it's cleared when it's not? These are the 'loopholes' that are being exploited. So why not change those?
Rose already hit most of what I was going to say, but I did want to get this:
"Another fine example of what is in a home school curriculum, I guess! "
Granted, my high school education was a while ago and my BA in Business Management only had 2 classes of Accounting, but I don't remember any part of any educational curriculum that explains the intricacies of banking you're talking about. Your points would be better received if you weren't taking such petty little snipes at people.
"So, you do not trust that your bank will not steal your money? You must keep you cash under your mattress then."
No, I trust my bank to do everything in its power to get fees and charges out of me. If I had the ability to link my mattress to the internet and make payments that way, I would. In the meantime, I exchange the need for paranoid diligence for the convenience of electronic money.
"Do I want my bank to hold every check I ever deposit for 11 business days or more? Absolutely not."
Why would they have to hold it for 11 days if they would just electonically verify the check in the first place? I can deposit money into my bank via digital image of my check (without even mailing the original in!), so why can’t they electronically request verification from that check’s issuer?
"Every single time there is a lawsuit techdirt wants to change laws to prevent that lawsuit. Dumb."
Don't read here too often, do you?
First, Mike didn't say 'change the law'. He suggested banks give warning over what the "cleared check" really means and that spending that money may have risk. If my bank says "oh that money is there" and then later they really check into it, where is my fault for thinking it was OK?
Second, if there is a law or procedure that is being taken advantage of by criminals, why would you not want to adjust it to make it harder to exploit? As long as it doesn't hamper legitimate business or infringe upon rights, what's the problem?
Sad when the 'shining example' America was supposed to set for the world moves from 'freedom and democracy' to 'idiocy and over reactive sensationalism'. If I keep having to drown my national identity in alcohol on a weekly basis, I might as well just stay in the bottle. :/
What we see here, just like in the US, is argument for government-protected royalties. And I ask "why do we need such protections"? I've heard before that we would have no art if the royalties weren't protected. I think that's BS. What we have now are a bunch of cookie-cutter 'artists' like Bieber and Spears who don't really (in my humble opinion) add anything to the enrichment of society. All they do is market themselves out to make their labels money. That's not art, it's prostitution without sex (or really damned close in Spears' case).
I propose that if we were to remove the protection that we have now (instead of increasing it), we would have artists who create art for the sake of creating art. I know that there are artists out there doing exactly that, but they are being drowned in a sea of mediocrity (and that's being generous). If we do away with the business of art, we would still have artists. As a bonus, we’d have a lot less crap made solely for a buck.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re:
Seriously, as one of the countries still holding on to the imperial measurement system, are you terribly surprised we have checks? I have a checkbook for one reason: cutting money to my parents when I owe them because I don't carry cash and I can't electronically pay them (my dad refuses to set up PayPal.)
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
Next, I searched my website to find the checking account agreement. Couldn't find it there. I know I have a copy at home, but most people don't have that after 10+ years of banking at the same bank.
So our original assertion stands: when your only source of information is the word of an employee at the bank who tells you the money is available, and you act upon that information, why is it the individual's fault when the information given to them is wrong?
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sadly Enough
Cheers!
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points
But you do answer my question with the point that the FDIC's bureaucracy inhibits improvements. I didn't think about the "play by our rules to get our protection" angle of this whole thing. You're right.
But I still don't buy that there's no way to put in place a system to verify checks faster than our current way. And if the status quo the banks are trying to protect is the environment where their customers are being taken advantage of by exploitation of the banks' own systems... I refer back to my initial post about 'paranoid diligence'
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23370012415/shouldnt-we-fix-check-clearing-loophole-that-s o-many-scammers-abuse.shtml#c788
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
Before this article, I did not know there was a difference between "cleared" and "mostly cleared". So no, I don't "KNOW that is the way the system works."
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Re: Re: Sadly Enough
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Sadly Enough
However, I would say it's more of a distribution of a distribution. If I'm just pointing to an area where you could break the law, am I liable for you breaking the law when you get there?
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: A few points
So again, why can we not have a system that verifies the checks quick enough that a 'hold until verified' isn't so long a time that it slows business down too much?
On the post: Once Again, More State Dept. Cables Show Swedish Copyright Enforcement At The Behest Of US
Does having similar goals mean 'clear links' to you? Wow... so since every for-profit corporation in existence has the similar goal of increasing capital growth, they are all of the same "agenda" as demonstrated by their "clear links"?
Looks like someone's tinfoil hat is slipping a bit there.
And what does Wikipedia have to do with it? Do you mean Wikileaks?
On the post: Once Again, More State Dept. Cables Show Swedish Copyright Enforcement At The Behest Of US
Re: Re: Re: this is normal practice
And it's more a rolling of the eyes and patting Darryl on the head then trying to ignore some inconvenient statement.
Now, a high-tech anti-troll solution. Hmm... that would be worthwhile.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, people should be diligent, and too-good-to-be-true usually is... but obviously, there are people who take the banks' word that the money is good.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
And why should it be my fault if my bank says "the funds are there" when they're not?
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: A few points
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: how do you know?
Granted, my high school education was a while ago and my BA in Business Management only had 2 classes of Accounting, but I don't remember any part of any educational curriculum that explains the intricacies of banking you're talking about. Your points would be better received if you weren't taking such petty little snipes at people.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: What?
Why would they have to hold it for 11 days if they would just electonically verify the check in the first place? I can deposit money into my bank via digital image of my check (without even mailing the original in!), so why can’t they electronically request verification from that check’s issuer?
Don't read here too often, do you?
First, Mike didn't say 'change the law'. He suggested banks give warning over what the "cleared check" really means and that spending that money may have risk. If my bank says "oh that money is there" and then later they really check into it, where is my fault for thinking it was OK?
Second, if there is a law or procedure that is being taken advantage of by criminals, why would you not want to adjust it to make it harder to exploit? As long as it doesn't hamper legitimate business or infringe upon rights, what's the problem?
On the post: Is There Any Actual Proof A House Was Robbed Due To A Facebook Status Update?
Why jump to the conclusions?
Sad when the 'shining example' America was supposed to set for the world moves from 'freedom and democracy' to 'idiocy and over reactive sensationalism'. If I keep having to drown my national identity in alcohol on a weekly basis, I might as well just stay in the bottle. :/
On the post: Once Again, More State Dept. Cables Show Swedish Copyright Enforcement At The Behest Of US
Re: Re:
On the post: Indian Film Industry Threatening To Strike Over Proposed Copyright Reform That Would Make Them Pay Composers For Music
So, what's the problem?
I propose that if we were to remove the protection that we have now (instead of increasing it), we would have artists who create art for the sake of creating art. I know that there are artists out there doing exactly that, but they are being drowned in a sea of mediocrity (and that's being generous). If we do away with the business of art, we would still have artists. As a bonus, we’d have a lot less crap made solely for a buck.
On the post: Indie Music Association Comes Out In Favor Of Seizing Domain Names Of Blogs That Promote Their Music
Re: Re:
Next >>