Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 901 posts

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#21

Post by capableweb »

pipes wrote: post #20
vfclists wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Genuine questio what do you mean? I find them very useful. As in they work. Are you seeing something else?

There is a feud between CloudFlare and the person/people running Archive.is/ph, where they blame each other for X, and people using CloudFlare's DNS gets sent into some redirect loop or something when they try to access the website.

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317 "Tell HN: Archive.is inaccessible via Cloudflare DNS (1.1.1.1)"

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#23

Post by wrycoder »

jonahbenton wrote: post #17
cwillu wrote: post #14

It's remarkable how totalitarianism seeps in.

It's interesting, it really isn't totalitarianism, actually the opposite, in a way that 20th C writers were simply not able to imagine. There is no centralization/dictatorial dynamic for this in the US, at all. It is all decentralized, at best these outcomes fall into the "unintended consequences of regulation" category, which is rather well studied, but in a much more simplified world model than we face today.

The actors know their lines well, they don’t need direction. In German, it’s called Gleichschaltung.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#24

Post by BlueTemplar »

jonahbenton wrote: post #17
cwillu wrote: post #14

It's remarkable how totalitarianism seeps in.

It's interesting, it really isn't totalitarianism, actually the opposite, in a way that 20th C writers were simply not able to imagine. There is no centralization/dictatorial dynamic for this in the US, at all. It is all decentralized, at best these outcomes fall into the "unintended consequences of regulation" category, which is rather well studied, but in a much more simplified world model than we face today.

How is it not ?

> If the bank has filed a SAR, it isn’t legally allowed to tell you, and the federal government prosecutes only a small fraction of the people whom the banks document in their SARs.

Sounds worryingly similar to an effective violation of habeas corpus ?

P.S.: To make the matters worse, it looks that trying to rely more on cash as an insurance against getting debanked, raises your risk of getting debanked !

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#25

Post by sneak »

wolverine876 wrote: post #8

You can be barred from flying (is that still true?) and now banking, without trial or evidence. It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.

Banking is optional; the problem is that many businesses insist on bank cards to transact. It’s important that businesses be compelled to accept cash for all transactions.

It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure.

Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is subject to surveillance and seizure/freezing without evidence or probable cause. Cash has none of these problems.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#26

Post by salawat »

jonahbenton wrote: post #17
cwillu wrote: post #14

It's remarkable how totalitarianism seeps in.

It's interesting, it really isn't totalitarianism, actually the opposite, in a way that 20th C writers were simply not able to imagine. There is no centralization/dictatorial dynamic for this in the US, at all. It is all decentralized, at best these outcomes fall into the "unintended consequences of regulation" category, which is rather well studied, but in a much more simplified world model than we face today.

>There is no centralization/dictatorial dynamic for this in the US, at all.

You are incredibly incorrect on that assertion. There is, in fact, a centralization/dictatorial dynamic at play, and it's called the Bank Secrecy Act.

Now it doesn't read like it, which most acts of american legislature don't, but on further observation of what it actually does, the intent becomes clear. There is one financial system in the U.S., you will play by it's rules or be excluded, it won't tell you why, it will not be a dumb pipe either. It is directly coupled to law enforcement, and the Federal Government, and yes, there is a Master list that if you get on it, will lock you out of withdrawing from (but not depositing into!) every U.S. bank.

Part of why I no longer do finance work. Once you see how the sausage is made, there is no shower hot enough to slough off the slimey feeling.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#27

Post by edmundsauto »

RecycledEle wrote: post #6
meisel wrote: post #3

Do they just lose all their money in those accounts?

The law says the bank must give them their money. But banks are above the law. I know when PaPal codes and account, PayPal usually steals the money. Most traditional banks eventually give you your money if you hire a lawyer, that is, they give the money to the lawyer who keeps it.

How do you know Paypal usually keeps the money, is there a public accounting of this situation? Would be interesting to analyze - please share any info you have on the data.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#29

Post by slovette »

ciabattabread wrote: post #9

At minimum, there needs to be a law that requires banks to identify to the customer the specific transactions that led to the closing of the account. And if there’s no prosecution related to these transactions after a year, the ban gets lifted.

Ehm. No.

Innocent until proven guilty, not guilt until proven innocent.

Being de-platformed from financial infrastructure is tantamount to being economically jailed and instantly forced into life altering poverty. This isn’t some silly app you’re getting banned from…

Banks shouldn’t be allowed to ban anyone. They should need a court order to lock up/ban someone from access/mobility of their own property.

That said, this is likely a narrow lens statement. The problem is more complex around governments/judicial systems incentivizing banks to behave like governments. In reality, our regulatory agencies need to do their jobs: regulate/enforce and be held accountable when they don’t (instead of passing that enforcement on to banks through threat of liability).

Post reply on HN