bank of america fingerprinting to cash checks?!

[Fluff and Stuff]

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.

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.

[Romak]

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.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

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.

Wow. Never even heard of this until this article. It just comes off as creepy as hell to me.

I respect the need of some government

Not I.

Seconded.

[ByronB]

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?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

hows 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.

[Puke]

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.

[ByronB]

hows 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.

[John Edward Mercier]

The only objection that will work is to avoid BoA...
But as the others have posted; its an individual choice.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

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

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.

[ByronB]

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

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.

[bouncer]

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.