Bogus business practices?Follow

Gbaji, you're a frigging ******.

I'm retarded for posting something interesting and controversal on the Asylum? Heh. Are you sure you know where you are?

Yep, I'm talking to a ****** (you).

"I was not approved for my TV purchase at Sears when I was using a check" is controversal? If it is, then, get ready for this one; it'll blow your socks off!

COMING SOON TO A FORUM NEAR YOU!

The epic battle that you've all been waiting for has finally arive. Boxers versus Briefs... 2!

This time, THEY MEAN IT!

Edited, Tue Nov 9 19:04:48 2004 by RPZip

I have never been asked for an ID when using my debit card.

Pssst... Samira. That's the point I'm making. Both systems take the money directly from your bank account. But with a check, they take your ID, and your paper with the bank info on it, and a signature. With a debit card, you (or anyone pretending to be you), just swipes the card.

Hence, a check is much more secure. Doesn't the fact that you've never had to show ID to use a piece of plastic to spend money directly from your bank acount make you the teensiest bit concerned about the security of such a method of payment?

If you don't have to show ID, neither does the guy who stole your debit card. Or the guy who just copied the number off the machine you swiped it on. That's been the point all along. Both are managed identically behind the scenes, but the process at the POS is different, with the check process vastly more secure for the customer.

What "island"?

What's going on?

Why does this thread exist?

Why is it still going on?

Who the fu[b][/b]ck cares?

arrrrrrrrr

You're fu[/u]cking dumb.

I'm talking about HOW the payments work. You're in the stone-age you stubborn little fu[u]ck.

Ugh!

Fascinating as all this is, I still fail to see the problem.

Assuming your junk mail scam was the cause, the credit verification company has reason to believe that you don't have a valid address on file and thusly refused your check.

You, so hung up on the "security" () of checking, get your panties all in a wad that the verification company won't take your check knowing that you falsified your information.

WTF?

Yeah, fine, whatever. I read the first part of your dissertation, woke up, wiped up the drool and replied. Sue me.

I was being ironical!

But you do have a point, and I fu[b][/b]cked it up.


random movie quotes for 500: where does the "ironical" line come from?

Two points though:

1. They don't need to contact me. They only need to ensure that the *bank* will honor the check. Now, if the bank didn't have a valid address, they'd have a point. At no point in the check honoring process does my address have anything to do with it. If my bank has an issue with it (which they dont since I do online banking), that's a different story. All the approval company needs to determine is if the bank will give Sears the money written on the check. I fail to see where my address comes in at all (unless they have a secondary purpose of marketing my info).

2. I did not give false information at all. That is my correct address. If you look it up with the county, you'll find my name as the owner of that plot. If you drive down the street, you'll find me there. If you send certified mail, or UPS, or FedEx, they'll all be able to find me and deliver to me. You just can't send me mail via standard postal delivery at that address.

At no time in the process was I asked for my *mailing address*. I have an address written on my check. I also have an address written on my drivers license. There is no legal presumption that those must be my mailing address.

Ever wonder why many forms ask for a residence addresss, and then make a point of saying that if your mailing adress is different, to fill out a second entry for mailing address? This is why. They are two different things. No fraud involved here. That is my address. I live there. That is all they need to know for purposes of identification. The only reason they'd need my mailing address would be if they want to send me something in the mail. Now what possible reason could this company have to do that? None.


The real issue is that I have no opportunity to opt out of any marketing they may use in their system. If I were applying for a credit card from them for instance, I might be willing to give them correct contact information (phone and address) if they have some sort of form/contract/whatever that promises not to use that information for marketing (which applications forms are supposed to have, but many do not). But I have no option to do that when it's a POS plugging my information into a remote system. Thus, it is well within my rights not to provide a valid mailing address via that system. I don't know about your state, but in California, there have been civil cases about this already. Companies *must* provide an opting out method before requiring someone to provide them with contact information. Since I have no opportunity to do that, I am therefore *not* required in any legal way to give them a valid mailing address (or phone number actually).

That's why I consider it a bogus busines practice. They're using a backhanded way to get around the protections put in place specifically to allow consumers a way to shield their contact information from marketers.