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

The Long Shadow of Checks

bitsaboutmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#61

Post by toasterlovin »

lmz wrote: post #26
sneed_chucker wrote: post #19

Honestly, I just hate how insecure and legacy everything involving banking in this country is. For example, payroll - there's literally no reason your employer needs to store your account and routing number as another piece of your personal info that they can lose when some hacker finds out their MySQL admin password is "admin" Like, the system should be that you give your employer your banks name, plus a UUID associ…

As a non American, the idea of a bank account number being a kind of secret that is usable to pull money out of the account is the most curious thing to me. I guess something like this can only exist in a high trust environment.

Things aren't actually that simple. In terms of preventing fraud by the merchant, it's similar to credit cards in that the merchant needs to have a relationship with a bank in order to process ACH payments. That bank does underwriting on the risk of the merchant and has fraud prevention mechanisms in place.

For someone other than a merchant to transfer money out of your account with just your bank details, they would have to either try to pass a fake check or set up your bank account as an external account that they can transfer money out of to one of their own financial accounts. But external accounts are typically verified with test deposits before they can be transferred to/from.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#62

Post by jrmg »

reaperducer wrote: post #57
jrmg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never considered tipping by check - and have occasionally stiffed people who deserved a tip because I didn’t have enough cash. Is using checks for this really a thing people do? When doing this do you name of the person you’re tipping, or just give them a check with the first line blank?

I don't do it for everyday tips. But for the annual Christmas tips, yes. Like to the doormen or the parking garage valet. Anyone that would get a card, I think it's OK to put a check inside. But not for tipping the bellhop at a hotel. I think that would be weird. As for writing checks to people whose name you don't know (or in my case, there are certain doormen whose names I would surely misspell), you just write "Ca…

Oh, man! Now that you say this I realize that I knew that you could write checks to ‘cash’, but it’s been _so long_ since I’ve even thought about this I forgot!

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#63

Post by bloaf »

smitty1e wrote: post #52
stevenjgarner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His proclivity for sesquipedalianism, manifested in the substitution of "infelicity" for the more pedestrian "misfortune," may have been an artifice to inveigle the reader into a divergent mode of cogitation.

Eschew obfuscation.

Write newspeak for goodthink.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#64

Post by dqv »

otteromkram wrote: post #41
tjader wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is implemented in most of the world outside of the US. It is scary that the info you need to deposit funds into an account in the US also allows you to withdraw funds from it.

With approval (eg - PIN or password) you might be able to withdrawal funds. But, can't you say the same thing about a credit card? Heck, you don't even need a password for that; everything you need is right on the card. Or, your mobile device (if you pay through near-field tech)?

>With approval (eg - PIN or password) you might be able to withdrawal funds.

Not to sound like someone who wants to get your bank details, but which bank allows you to delay ACH payments until you approve them? All someone needs to get money from my account is the (publicly available) routing number for my bank and my account number. Boom. Now I'm paying someone else's Verizon bill and have to call my bank and say "I can't believe you think I'm someone who would waste money with Verizon!". What I really want is access control for all ACH transactions. They said it wasn't possible for me to do an allowlist for ACH. I basically just have to call any time a fraudulent transaction comes through to stop payment. OTOH, with certain card issuers (AmEx I think?), I can simply press a button to declare a transaction fraudulent.

>But, can't you say the same thing about a credit card? Heck, you don't even need a password for that; everything you need is right on the card.

Checks have that too. Except there are hundreds of copies of them. Someone just needs to see one check to get all the information they need to withdraw from your account.

OTOH, I turn my debit card off, so having that information is useless unless someone knows when it's on. I can actually do this with most of my cards, debit and credit. Coupled with virtual credit cards, it's a really effective way to secure money. Or at least have stricter control than a classic bank account.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#65

Post by Proziam »

Klonoar wrote: post #35
spelunker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, is there a particular reason he uses obscure words like "infelicity"? I'm a native English speaker and I think that is the first time I've heard that word used. Is it really that hard to just use "misfortune"?

There are more than a few people who value what he writes but find the overall "winding path" of style to be very grating to read.

I am one such person. I have no issue reading obscure or difficult content (legal documents ala Companies Act 2006 to historical documents written in non-native languages). However, for me, his particular style forces me to read many things twice or thrice to determine whether or not I've understood him correctly.

Despite that, I still get a lot from his writing.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#66

Post by paulddraper »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #49
paulddraper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I am perplexed by the fill-now-pay-after European gas pumps. I suppose something like that can only exist in a high trust environment.

Not trying to wade into a continental dispute, but weren't gas pumps in the US also fill-then-pay until maybe 10-15 yr ago? I find it strange that you now have to basically guess about how much it will cost and then authorize a purchase up to that amount, instead of, you know, paying for however much actually got pumped (at today's price).

If you pay inside (cash it card), you know the cost and guess the volume.

If you pay outside (card), you control both cost and volume. But it pre auths $100 or something.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#67

Post by timerol »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #4

I'm continually surprised by the political influence held by the thousands of tiny banks in the country. I must applaud the people behind the Check 21 Act: it's the combination of a neat backwards compatibility trick (if you want paper, we'll print it and send it to you) and political maneuvering that I must admire it. > Since the standard U.S. bank account is a checking account, even if it cannot write checks, it is…

If I write you a $500 check and you accept it for $500 cash (or $500 of goods), you are extending me credit. You don't actually know that my account has the $500 until you cash the check. Someone has to pay that $500, even if I only have $100 in my account. And if I read the article right, the bank is legally required to take the loss.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#68

Post by muffinman26 »

dqv wrote: post #17

It's interesting to see this discussion about speeding up check processing, because it seems that a lot of people use checks to slow payments down . It's a convenient way to make it inconvenient for the receiving party! It works like this: receive invoice, wait until due date, write a check dated for the due date, wait a few days, send it through regular mail, and complain about the past due notices because "I've alr…

I always make sure my checks arrive before their due date, but yes, I think mail is more secure than whatever random payment processor portal a company decides to set up. There's no way I trust the e-pay system of my Home Owner's Association, for example, which looks to be custom for absolutely no reason and frequently crashes. I have yet to lose a single check in the mail after sending 3-4 a month for the last 5+ years.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#69

Post by nradov »

timerol wrote: post #67
e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #4

I'm continually surprised by the political influence held by the thousands of tiny banks in the country. I must applaud the people behind the Check 21 Act: it's the combination of a neat backwards compatibility trick (if you want paper, we'll print it and send it to you) and political maneuvering that I must admire it. > Since the standard U.S. bank account is a checking account, even if it cannot write checks, it is…

If I write you a $500 check and you accept it for $500 cash (or $500 of goods), you are extending me credit. You don't actually know that my account has the $500 until you cash the check. Someone has to pay that $500, even if I only have $100 in my account. And if I read the article right, the bank is legally required to take the loss.

No, banks aren't required to honor bad checks. They reject checks all the time for insufficient funds (bouncing). Some banks offer overdraft protection to checking account holders so that checks won't bounce (within some limit) but that's a separate feature.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#70

Post by bloaf »

Klonoar wrote: post #35
spelunker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, is there a particular reason he uses obscure words like "infelicity"? I'm a native English speaker and I think that is the first time I've heard that word used. Is it really that hard to just use "misfortune"?

There are more than a few people who value what he writes but find the overall "winding path" of style to be very grating to read.

This is like criticizing someone's technical ability after they finished a Bob Ross painting course.

The point was joyful self-expression. You can go make your own painting with no happy little trees if you want.

Post reply on HN