here is a thread from a california board but the local tv station here in rhode island just did a story about a guy who tried to cash a check here and besides asking him to place his ink thumbprint on the check (which he did) they told him there was a 6 dollar fee to cash the check because he was a non member!!! apparently this all started last week...
"....just when you think it can only get better. I went to Bank of America to cash a check. I don't have an account there so I hand my license and the endorsed check to the clerk, she tells me they have to finger print me in order to cash the check. I look at her and blurt out "you gotta be shtng me. No sir that's our new policy as of today, we are protecting our customers. Ya right. I told her they should be finger printing the bank CEO's, they are the people we need protecting from.
I left with the check, called the person that gave me the check and told him cash only from now on or get a new bank.
Effective immediately I will refuse Bank of America checks as a form of payment..."
yeah. a buddy of mine at work was telling me that on Monday night actually.
Since this is a contractual requirement for dealing with the bank... the customers will need to decide.
i just saw it happen to someone else in manchester. i objected to the bank employees.
Seems to me Bank of America might be losing some customers...
I don't see why you guys are viewing this as a negative. This is a free market solution to security in regarding people's money.
You have a choice to deal with this bank or not deal with it.
I'd want to read more regarding privacy of finger prints but assuming they keep them private I see this as a good thing and would certainly feel safer keeping my money there. After all people can (and have) forge signatures.
Not for or opposed.
Just will be interesting to see how it affects customer acquisition.
Quote from: lildog on October 01, 2008, 09:37 AM NHFT
I don't see why you guys are viewing this as a negative. This is a free market solution to security in regarding people's money.
You have a choice to deal with this bank or not deal with it.
I'd want to read more regarding privacy of finger prints but assuming they keep them private I see this as a good thing and would certainly feel safer keeping my money there. After all people can (and have) forge signatures.
Personally I don't care, because I'm not a customer of theirs. But if someone is a customer they have a right to be upset if the company they're dealing with does something they don't like. Everyone knows they can deal with the bank or not deal with it.
Oh, I support Bank of America's "right" (so-called) to fingerprint non-account-holders who present checks. But since they do that, I won't do business with them.
As for checks, it's not all that hard to get a bank account. If you have bad checks in your history for some reason, many banks will now open "checking" accounts for you without checks, just a Visa/MC debit card. Citibank does this, for instance.
Can anybody confirm this on paper, or a story? I want to get my witches on this asap.
Just dont bank there, much like insurance companies requiring your SS# for car insurance we found one that doesnt and we go with them. Or you can just pay a year in advance to avoid the credit check. My car insurance company has no right to look at my credit history. Recently we went with a local oil company that requires this for scheduled deliveries. We crossed out the entire section giving permission for credit checks and signed cash only. They still went ahead and ran my credit by getting my SS# from an outside party which is very easy to do since this is one of the things I do for a living. Long story short my attorney is working on it. Really pisses me off the amount of people who look at your credit and personal information.
Most likely because you can not change a contract unilaterally.
The other party would need to cross out the section and initial it.
They did initial it, we both did. And they still obtained my SS# without me giving it to them.
Since they have the cash upfront it should not have been necessary.
If you have an option, change suppliers...
I've done this to companies before to show them that I expect mutual respect in relationships.
Quote from: grasshopper on October 01, 2008, 10:57 AM NHFT
Can anybody confirm this on paper, or a story? I want to get my witches on this asap.
From the Fairfield (CT) Weekly
County Fair: The Fine Print (http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=9778)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
By Dave Bonan
To cash a check you need two forms of government-issued ID, maybe a PIN number and...a copy of your fingerprints?
That's what Kevin Gallagher, of Bethel, says he's twice been asked for (and twice refused to give) when cashing a check. Gallagher, 44, is known locally for hosting Time Out with Kevin Gallagher on Comcast Channel 23 since 1996.
Back in 2006, he was working for a company (he declined to give a name) and went to cash his payroll check through his employer's bank, Wachovia. The tellers would only cash it if he paid $5 and gave his fingerprints, since he did not have a checking or savings account through Wachovia. He refused and complained about the policy to his boss, who subsequently withdrew his business accounts from the institution.
A month ago, Gallagher went to cash his payroll check at the Bank of America on Grassy Plain Street in Bethel, as had been his ritual for months, and was asked for prints. Furthermore, the bank wanted to charge him $6 each time he drew a check from his employer's account. He refused to pay or give his fingerprints. He has been providing two forms of ID and says that should be enough.
"My thumbprint is my property and I feel asking for it is a crime in order to obtain money that's been set aside for me," says Gallagher. He adds, "I cashed my check at a check-cashing place and their two percent service charge is actually less out of my pocket than Bank of America's $6 charge."
Gallagher is a bit cautious about banking because he was the victim of identity theft and continues to hear news stories about banks losing customers' information. He closed his checking and savings accounts (though he sometimes uses his wife's account). Hence, the cashing checks from his employers' banks.
Gallagher also referenced Bank of America's lending practices that sparked an outcry in February 2007 where it offered credit cards and mortgages to illegal immigrants without Social Security numbers or credit histories. In its defense, Bank of America said it's complied with U.S. banking and antiterrorism laws and was simply "meeting the needs of an untapped group of potential customers."
"I want equal treatment," says Gallagher. "If illegal immigrants can obtain mortgages without any credit, then why should I be charged a fee?"
Christine Lucsky, office manager of the Bethel branch, says this is part of a new policy that took effect on Sept. 16, called a "non-relationship customer fee," that charges individuals when cashing a check issued by business, not personal, accounts.
After scouring their Web site for close to an hour, I could not find this new policy anywhere, not even the news release section. One would think a new nationwide policy would be in plain sight. Bank of America's customer service center recalled no such fingerprint policy, but after a few minutes confirmed there was one. I was told that only some banking centers utilize the fingerprint policy at their discretion.
The logic is that a criminal wouldn't cash a stolen check while giving away his fingerprints, so the policy acts as a safeguard to check fraud.
Diane Wagner, spokesperson for Bank of America, says fingerprinting has been done for years by several banks. According to the American Bankers Association, it's not about identification, rather it's a tool of deterrence and verification.
"This fee is new to the former Fleet markets but not new to the franchise as we instituted a fee to non-account-holders since 2001," says Wagner. (Bank of America acquired Fleet in 2004.)
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was not aware that banks were utilizing the fingerprint policy. "I haven't heard about it, but we are looking into it," says Blumenthal. Recalling his crusade in 1998 against ATM's charging non-customer fees, he says, "These practices are abusive but not illegal."
Quote from: grasshopper on October 01, 2008, 10:57 AM NHFT
Can anybody confirm this on paper, or a story? I want to get my witches on this asap.
I've personally had Bank of America in San Francisco ask me to give a fingerprint while cashing a check. The same in Portland, Oregon.
A lot of banks do this now, including my old bank, USBank. My suggestion? Have an account at a small credit union that actually cares about you and/or an account at a large nation-wide bank like BofA where you can go into a location in almost any town and not have to deal w/ their crap.
This is new? For several years most banks I've done business with here in Missouri and Kansas have required a fingerprint and some small fee, usually $5, for non-account holders to cash a check. It's their prerogative. One can either demand cash payment for services instead of a check, open an account, or cash the check at a check-cashing place if their fees are lower. It's annoying but not coercive.
A check drawn from an account at THEIR bank is a promised payment from their customer (whose money they are holding) securing the customers money I understand . They have no right to charge a non account holding customer to cash a check drawn from their bank. If your paycheck is from their bank you've worked all week and now you have to pay an extra five bucks to get your wages I THINK NOT!! and now they want more taxpayer dollars to bail their butts out of the sling they put themselves in we should overthrow the banks first. Rotten thieves. Other than that I have no strong feelings about that. LOL
Their customer is the person obligating you to pay the fee by paying you by check. If you don't want to pay the fee, don't accept the check.
You are of course free to start your own no-fee bank you know. ;)
Quote from: lildog on October 01, 2008, 09:37 AM NHFT
I don't see why you guys are viewing this as a negative. This is a free market solution to security in regarding people's money.
You have a choice to deal with this bank or not deal with it.
I'd want to read more regarding privacy of finger prints but assuming they keep them private I see this as a good thing and would certainly feel safer keeping my money there. After all people can (and have) forge signatures.
the problem is that if i'm not mistaken, the government has been known to acquire the fingerprints of 'suspects' this way, and then even if they're not guilty of the crime they have them in the database.
I'm blown away that people think this is "odd". I've always been fingerprinted with one of those "invisible ink" pads and a special sticker when cashing a check. I'm a Bank of America customer so I've never been fingerprinted by them, but even places like Wal-mart have always done the fingerprint thing.
Maybe it's state law in some places?
I just don't use checks, makes the whole thing easier. :)
I wouldn't worry about privacy concerns. The fingerprints are more of a psychological deterrent to check fraud. They do not use formal printing techniques and do not verify the quality of the print. Just give your thumb a little twist when you press and the print is completely unusable. In my experience nobody cares.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 02, 2008, 06:55 AM NHFT
I'm blown away that people think this is "odd". I've always been fingerprinted with one of those "invisible ink" pads and a special sticker when cashing a check. I'm a Bank of America customer so I've never been fingerprinted by them, but even places like Wal-mart have always done the fingerprint thing.
Maybe it's state law in some places?
I just don't use checks, makes the whole thing easier. :)
Where do you live? I've never been fingerprinted at a business.
Its extremely odd and very invasive. First a fingerprint than a swob of saliva, all for the safety of our customers. Life insurance companies want some saliva to test for nicotine, etc. We wanted extra life insurance but stayed under the amount that required us to give them saliva. Not that we have anything to hide, but with the advances in technology etc there will be a day very soon where they will be able to tell if you are going to get a disease at some point in your life, etc. The less information they have on you the better.
Can only tell if your susceptible to a disease... but can find genetic disorders.
Quote from: lildog on October 01, 2008, 09:37 AM NHFT
I don't see why you guys are viewing this as a negative. This is a free market solution to security in regarding people's money.
Just because someone can, doesn't mean they should.And describing entities like BofA as "free market" is laughable. Modern banks are about as far from the free market as you can get, except for the State itself. And as of a couple weeks ago, most of these banks
are owned and operated by the State.
Even here there are people that don't get it the banks, the mainstream media they are just arms of the government reaching in to control every aspect of our lives. I respect the need of some government because I've seen the true chaotic anarchy that can happen but that government needs to be miniscule and close to the people very local to be kept under the eyes of the people to be kept under control or it will runaway with our rights and freedom. " those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve Neither"
Remember those words they are the truth.
QuoteWhere do you live? I've never been fingerprinted at a business.
Maryland for now, but I've been fingerprinted in Michigan and Kentucky as well. I am 100% certain Wal-Mart has made me do the fingerprint thing to cash a check before in Kentucky.
QuoteAnd describing entities like BofA as "free market" is laughable.
Yeah, I consider banks to be quasi-government agencies themselves, so bureucracy and invasion are kind of a given.
QuoteI respect the need of some government
Not I. :D
Like J'Raxis said, the big banks are more in bed with government that just about any other business. I don't trust them with my personal information. I give it to some in order to have an account, but I'm not about to start handing it over every time I want to get payment from one of their customers! If they're going to charge a fee, it should be the customer who's signed an agreement with them. I've never heard of having to pay a fee to cash a check in this way and many people aren't going to be aware of it when they take a check from someone as payment that they're not actually getting $10. They're actually getting $5 in payment. It seems like false advertising practically just on the basis of what's understood about checks. It's like the grocery store listing one price and charging something higher when you get to the register. They should have it on the check itself -- "BofA will charge you $5 to cash this" so you can tell the customer that you either won't except it or tell them to right it for an extra $5.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 02, 2008, 12:03 PM NHFT
QuoteWhere do you live? I've never been fingerprinted at a business.
Maryland for now, but I've been fingerprinted in Michigan and Kentucky as well. I am 100% certain Wal-Mart has made me do the fingerprint thing to cash a check before in Kentucky.
Yeah, Wal-Mart and BofA have done the fingerprinting thing for years where I used to live. BofA even finger printed me as a member, once.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on October 02, 2008, 10:19 AM NHFT
Can only tell if your susceptible to a disease... but can find genetic disorders.
Right, but down the road that will most definitely change, and they'll still have your sample.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 02, 2008, 12:03 PM NHFT
QuoteWhere do you live? I've never been fingerprinted at a business.
Maryland for now, but I've been fingerprinted in Michigan and Kentucky as well. I am 100% certain Wal-Mart has made me do the fingerprint thing to cash a check before in Kentucky.
Wow. Never even heard of this until this article. It just comes off as creepy as hell to me.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 02, 2008, 12:03 PM NHFT
QuoteI respect the need of some government
Not I. :D
Seconded.
Quote from: lildog on October 01, 2008, 09:37 AM NHFT
I don't see why you guys are viewing this as a negative. This is a free market solution to security in regarding people's money.
You have a choice to deal with this bank or not deal with it.
I'd want to read more regarding privacy of finger prints but assuming they keep them private I see this as a good thing and would certainly feel safer keeping my money there. After all people can (and have) forge signatures.
It's kind of laughable to call it a free-market solution for security... I've never been fingerprinted and I refuse to do business with any business that requires a fingerprint; hows that for a free-market solution?
Quotehows that for a free-market solution?
It's a viable one. :)
I have no problem providing personal information, quite honestly. There's only one group of people I'm afraid of getting it and that's the goverment. They're the only group of people I'm really concerned with trying to use that information to hurt me. That said, I'm not to worried about my fingerprint in and of itself. If the feds really want it, it's all over my doorknob, my car, my work and yadda yadda yadda.
I object to the FORCE behind the government mandating that information. I don't mind specifically if I'm asked for it. I'll put a fingerprint down to get cash. :) The check's in my name, not like there's any sort of anonymity expected in the act of cashing a check.
I don't really have a problem with this.
It's what they want to do. Don't use or accept checks if it bothers you.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 02, 2008, 02:58 PM NHFT
Quotehows that for a free-market solution?
It's a viable one. :)
I have no problem providing personal information, quite honestly. There's only one group of people I'm afraid of getting it and that's the goverment. They're the only group of people I'm really concerned with trying to use that information to hurt me. That said, I'm not to worried about my fingerprint in and of itself. If the feds really want it, it's all over my doorknob, my car, my work and yadda yadda yadda.
I object to the FORCE behind the government mandating that information. I don't mind specifically if I'm asked for it. I'll put a fingerprint down to get cash. :) The check's in my name, not like there's any sort of anonymity expected in the act of cashing a check.
Here is the problem, if we don't object enough to banks asking for fingerprints next the feds (feds=banks nowadays) will mandate it and keep it in a database "for your security" and to prevent "money laundering" and "identity theft". then your fingerprint will be referenced whenever there is some crime they are looking to pin on someone.
Just remember that fingerprints are NOT a absolute authority on someones identity, even though all LEO's like to sell it as such... people have been jailed for murder simply because they were in a finger-print data-base; so even if I'm arrested I'm not going to give up my prints without a bit of a squabble.
See http://taint.org/2005/09/20/005808a.html for more information about false positives.
The only objection that will work is to avoid BoA...
But as the others have posted; its an individual choice.
QuoteHere is the problem, if we don't object enough to banks asking for fingerprints next the feds (feds=banks nowadays) will mandate it and keep it in a database
Another problem... You assume this isn't already the case. I'm 100% sure the FBI has my fingerprints on file. There's a ton of reasons why it might be on file. If you've ever been arrested, for instance, or if you've worked somewhere that required government clearance (something that is fairly common among IT professionals) or if you've ever worked directly for the government itself.
And again, if the really wanted it to "jam you up" there are legal, easy and (relatively) unintrusive ways to get them.
I know with absolute certainty they've already got my prints. The question for me isn't how do I prevent them from getting them the question is "What do I do now knowing they have them?". Perhaps I'm a bit fatalistic here, but I no longer operate on the assumption that they "need" anything. If I become a threat in their eyes, they'll just off me, or level some child porn charge which would make any jury convict without need for those pesky things like "proof" or "evidence".
So what that they have that information. That's kind of my point. I act and operate on the assumption that IF they requie evidence, they already have it. If they don't require evidence, protecting it is pointless. That's why the need to delegitimize the violent thuggery of government is SOOOOOOO important to me.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on October 03, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
QuoteHere is the problem, if we don't object enough to banks asking for fingerprints next the feds (feds=banks nowadays) will mandate it and keep it in a database
Another problem... You assume this isn't already the case. I'm 100% sure the FBI has my fingerprints on file. There's a ton of reasons why it might be on file. If you've ever been arrested, for instance, or if you've worked somewhere that required government clearance (something that is fairly common among IT professionals) or if you've ever worked directly for the government itself.
And again, if the really wanted it to "jam you up" there are legal, easy and (relatively) unintrusive ways to get them.
I know with absolute certainty they've already got my prints. The question for me isn't how do I prevent them from getting them the question is "What do I do now knowing they have them?". Perhaps I'm a bit fatalistic here, but I no longer operate on the assumption that they "need" anything. If I become a threat in their eyes, they'll just off me, or level some child porn charge which would make any jury convict without need for those pesky things like "proof" or "evidence".
So what that they have that information. That's kind of my point. I act and operate on the assumption that IF they requie evidence, they already have it. If they don't require evidence, protecting it is pointless. That's why the need to delegitimize the violent thuggery of government is SOOOOOOO important to me.
Good point, I agree, however you could still be accidentally charged for something you didn't do because of a false positive with your prints.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on October 03, 2008, 06:53 AM NHFT
The only objection that will work is to avoid BoA...
But as the others have posted; its an individual choice.
Sometimes it's not that easy I worked for a security company if I told them I wouldn't accept a BofA check they would have happily let me work for free and that would have been their solution. Glad I left there for other reasons.