Personal finances and insuranceFollow

Does he get a big "O" on his chest? Maybe a cape and a silly hat? Cause that would be cool... or something not cool. I'm not sure which.

Sure. And just try walking up to one with a check you wrote on a piece of paper or in any other way not clearly one printed with a banks logo on it and looking and feeling like a check normally does and see how fast they look at you funny and then laugh when you insist they should cash it for you. It's a myth Smash. No one actually accepts anything that a bank did not print for you. Not except as a joke, or for someone they know personally.

Not a check cashing industry, of which there is also one, a check PRINTING industry. Read the words. Read the words. Read the words.

http://www.walmartchecks.com/

Holy ****, WalMart's a bank! Who fucking knew!

These jackasses, apparently also a bank!

http://secure.checksinthemail.com/line.aspx?lineid=105

Holy ****, it looks like anyone with a four color printer and the rights to a fucking kitten photo is a bank! No wonder people are so upset about TARP. Those kitten photographers shouldn't have been leveraging bad debt like that.

He makes a big deal out of my penchant to pay cash for things, so turn about is fair play...

I do? I think you're confusing my laughing at you using checks to buy minor goods because it seems like such a bizarre Luddite thing to do in 2010, and I freely admit that I don't *at all* understand it. I haven't written a personal check in at least 15 years.

I have, in the past, used the slow speed of check receipt to check cashing to take advantage of an additional window of time with which to use financial resources.

I have, in the past, used the slow speed of check receipt to check cashing to take advantage of an additional window of time with which to use financial resources.

That's a rational reason to use checks, although I gather the window for "kiting" in that fashion has shortened considerably.

I've worked retail in several locations. You're wrong. They'd never know or bother to look into it. If it's a rectangular piece of paper with some funny-font numbers on the bottom, it's golden.

Do you live in some fantasy-land where the seventeen year old wageslave at Best Buy is actually an undercover Treasury agent or something?

I suppose if the machine they run it through says it's ok, then it'll work.

There's still the matter of the ID. How many retail places have you ever worked at in which you were allowed to accept checks without taking the ID (and usually writing information from it like number and expiration date on the check)? Ever?



No. But they do tend to follow directions. Ever had someone you didn't know accept a physical check without checking your ID? How many times has anyone ever checked your ID when you are purchasing with a credit or debit card?


Apparently you live in a fantasy-land where the seventeen year old petty thief is more able to take advantage of a bank routing number than a credit/debit card number. That's simply and obviously not the case...

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 6:25pm by gbaji

Apparently you live in a fantasy-land where the seventeen year old petty thief is more able to take advantage of a bank routing number than a credit/debit card number. That's simply and obviously not the case...

Personally, I live in what I like to call Reality, where either of those events is so unlikely that it barely merits acknowledging and neither would much impact my life. I would make the argument, however, that when I recently had a backpack stolen that may have had credit card info inside, my bank killed the card with a phone call and printed me a new card the next day while I waited 2 minutes. The total inconvenience to me was about 6 minutes if I count the walk from where I work to the bank branch. Had I had a checkbook in there, it would have been significantly more cumbersome.

Except that it is demonstrably easier for a thief to make use of a credit or debit card number than a routing number off a check. That's what it ultimately comes back to Smash. You're spending all your time insisting that it's easy to get a routing number because it's printed right there on the check. Of course, the card number is printed right there on the card too. It's not about that. It's about the ease of use from the criminal's point of view.


The electronic nature of credit and debit card transactions make them especially attractive to thieves. Unless you're caught at the POS (which is nearly impossible), you can't be caught. There is no physical trace to follow. Just electronic transaction data. The same thing most of you are viewing as a vulnerability (the physical piece of paper) also makes it more dangerous to use. You have to handle the physical paper. You have to print it (or have it printed for you). The information on the paper has to match the information on an ID. That ID has to have your picture on it. There are a number of additional points which can increase your risk of being caught when dealing with checks.


As long as you only make POS purchases with a stolen or duped card, the only risk you're taking is video cameras in a store (which is the same risk taken using a bogus check). And while on paper (hah!) it may seem easier to make a fraudulent check, the reality is that every single small time hood is going to know a half dozen people who can dupe a credit or debit card for him. that's really a non-issue here. It's not about the ease of stealing the information needed, or making the false check or card, it's about the ease of using the final product to gain something for yourself.


This obviously is ignoring more sophisticated means. Obviously, larger scams will do things like create false businesses in order to use a large number of cards and/or routing numbers to do massive transfers of funds and then drain them before anyone catches on. Obviously, if you get caught up on one of those, you're toast either way, but you're also likely to get your money back either way as well. I'll again point out that debit transactions are still easier to manage using those methods. A bank will only release funds from a check event upon receipt of the check. Even a direct bank transfer using routing numbers still requires a "false" check be printed and transferred (seems silly and archaic, but that is part of the protection). Also, only businesses within certain bank circles can do this. Random mom and pop store cannot just submit a transfer for payment using routing numbers alone. Only other financial institutions and government agencies can typically do that. That's not to say that someone can't open up an account and then use your routing numbers to transfer funds, but he has to create a trail that can be traced to do this.

I mention these only to show that the bigger scheme's are the ones where the actual bank numbers are most vulnerable. The small time guy stealing your wallet is far more likely to take interest in your credit or debit card than he is in your checkbook...

You moron, I just need an ID with any name on it because I'm going to to print that name on the check and use your account/routing number on the bottom. In fact, if the store uses a check reader, it's even simpler because the clerk doesn't need all of your information -- once they scan the check and it comes back as good, they don't care about your phone number, drivers license number or anything else. They have (your) money. Check readers don't come back and say "Hey, is this Gbaji??", they just run your account information to the bank and look for a "yes" or "no"; same as the bank does when someone runs a debit card.


You also said: "Yes. It's incredibly hard to make a counterfeit check. Even one just good enough to get past a random store clerk." which was a stupid answer because it's not "incredibly hard" to make a counterfeir check. Any ****** with an inkjet printer can make a perfectly functional fake check.


You realize that's what I just said you would come back with instead of admitting that you're wrong, right?

Yes moron. Because the ones that scan the check like that, also return information about the check, like the actual name and address that should be printed on the check. While I suppose we can assume that every teenage wageslave working the counter wont notice that the name and address on the printed receipt doesn't match the one actually written on the check, it's not likely you're going to get away with that for long.

Um... We're also talking about risk to your own account. The funds don't actually get removed until the check arrives at the bank. They're not going to fail to miss that the name printed on the check doesn't match their records. In fact, I'd be shocked if their scanning system isn't capable of picking that up right away. The one at the store might not, but the one at the bank will. Meaning you're not going to lose any money.

That's why the store owners train their wageslaves to check the ID against the check. Cause if they accept an obvious forgery like that, the bank wont cash it, and they'll be out the money. Not the guy who owns the actual account.



Sure. But the bank does Joph. A POS check only clears when the check physically arrives and is scanned into the bank's system.


I'm not arguing that it's not easy to scam a local business with a bogus check. I know very well how easy that can be. My point is about how easy it is for funds to be removed from your account as a result of fraudulent activity. At the end of the day, that's what I care about the most...



Ok. I may have overstated that a bit. Whatever. I still maintain that it's not any harder to get a fake or duped card though. And the larger point is that said counterfeit has to get past the bank, not just the clerk at the store, before any funds come out of your account.

It's still just a strawman. Even if one could just rub their heels together and produce infinite numbers of counterfeit checks, it would still be harder to use them to take money out of someone's account than it would be to use a debit card.



Admitting that I'm wrong about something which is irrelevant? Um... Whatever Joph. You're right. I was wrong. It's not "incredibly hard" to make a counterfeit check capable of fooling a store clerk. It's only "slightly harder" to do that than to make a duped debit or credit card. Does that make you feel better about yourself? It still does nothing at all to disprove my point that debit cards are less safe than checks.


It's funny how frequently you invent a strawman just so that you can create some side argument in which you "win", while utterly failing to address the core issue at hand. Well. It's not just you though, it's pretty much the standard debating tactic on this board. I'm just curious if you're all aware that you're doing this?

I'd rather have the law on my side than be left to the caprices of banks and check processing companies.

Pretty much every security site I've read so far has recommended against carrying checks.

I'd also like to see you "wash" a card.

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 9:40pm by Sweetums

The point is that they don't have to. Once you have the card number (and PIN if required), you can withdraw funds from the account. Period. No washing needed. You can transfer the data on the magnetic strip to a blank dupe card and use it just like you would the original. You can even do this without the owner of the original even realizing his data has been stolen. Every single time you swipe your card anywhere, there is the potential that some scammer has attached a scanner to the machine you are swiping on. Every time you do an online transaction, it's even more likely to happen.

The core difference is that a fake card sufficient to fool the POS is sufficient to withdraw fund from your account. Every single time. The bank has no tools to determine if the card is real or not. With a check, it has to fool the POS *and* fool the bank before funds are withdrawn. That's an extra level of protection. They don't have to "wash" the check, because there is no check to wash. Just having the data is sufficient. That's more safe, not less safe.


What you're doing with a debit card is trusting that every single POS vendor in the world is capable of catching someone using a bogus card in order to protect the money in your account. With a check, you only have to trust that your bank is capable of spotting a bogus check. And they tend to be pretty good at that...


The reason vendors prefer debit or credit cards to the use of checks isn't about your safety. It's about their own. When they accept a check, they take responsibility that the check is good. If the bank refuses payment on it, they are out the money. That's why they go to much greater lengths to verify that a check is valid before accepting it btw. With a debit or credit card, once the card clears the machine, they get paid. The credit card company assumes the risk if the credit charge is fraudulent, and the bank assumes the risk if the debit card charge is fraudulent. You, as the account holder, have to fight with those two in order to cancel the fraudulent charges, and neither one is going to be "on your side" (since it's you or them paying the money).

With a credit card, you have the advantage that the credit company can't actually take the money out of your account. They have to bill you, and you can challenge the bill. With a debit card, you have no such protection. So you have a situation where once a charge to the account is made, it is in every interest of the bank to pass it on to you. That's why they had to pass special laws to protect account holders against debit card fraud. They didn't have to do it with checks because in that situation, the bank's interest is to avoid that conflict in the first place by simply refusing to honor the check if it's fraudulent, leaving the business to handle it. They are "on your side" in that situation.


Checks are structured in such a way that both the business accepting it and the bank honoring it will do everything they can to ensure the check is good prior to acceptance. This is good for the owner of the account. Other methods of payment are not done this way and are *bad* for the owner of the account. They are preferred by the banks and the businesses and the credit industry exactly because they can more easily pass the costs on to consumers, making it less expensive for them. Any claims that they are "safer" for you to use are bogus IMO. They are specifically less safe, but cheaper to manage for everyone else. That's it.

The latest fancy ones print out stuff like your name and whatnot on the receipt. For that matter, so do the credit and debit scanners. Heck. I'm looking at some of my travel receipts. The freaking scanners in the taxi cabs in Singapore print out your last name and first initial on the receipt. It's been awhile since I bothered with a check other than for a payment through the mail or to my mechanic (who just pockets it and cashes it cause he knows I'm good for it), but I'm positive that the receipts also print our your name. Now, I suppose they're optically scanning the check itself for that, but my understanding is that the info is attached with the account when you connect to the system. These are not your daddy's credit card systems...



Yes. With one caveat. The funds don't actually come out until they receive the paper check. You see how a system that treats them *exactly* the same except that one requires the bank to look over the paper check itself would mean that the paper check method is safer, right?

How can it be "less safe"? As you said, the easiest way for the thief to use your banking information with a fake ID is to print out his own checks with your routing number and his fake ID name and address on it. This will be immediately spotted at the bank and you wont lose any money.

The debit card has no such protection. Once a dupe is made sufficient to fool the POS, there's not other step to bypass. There's nothing for the bank to look at and go "Um... This is bogus, we're not going to pay".

Checks are safer. There's a lot of propaganda to the contrary, almost certainly because the businesses want you to use debit and credit cards. But the way to ensure the greatest safety on your bank account is to not attach a debit card to it, not authorize your atm as a POS card, and to only use paper checks when making charges against it. You're still vulnerable to a large scale routing number scam (but face it. Everyone is), and to ATM scams (but only $300/day. But with a debit card, you are vulnerable to those *and* to other methods of theft which are unlikely to be caught until it's too late.


I'm still unsure why anyone is debating this. A check is always an extra level of protection. Always has been. That's why it's called a "check".