bank of america fingerprinting to cash checks?!

[error]

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.

[PowerPenguin]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[bouncer]

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

[Paul]

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.

[ali-cat]

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.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

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.

[Romak]

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

Can only tell if your susceptible to a disease... but can find genetic disorders.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[bouncer]

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.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Where 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.

And 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.

I respect the need of some government

Not I.

[dalebert]

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.