Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 06:34 In article <eruu77$vf3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eruk81$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped >>traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the >>piece of paper you sent to him; > >No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking >them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he >can't cash it again. There are banking services that will accept the scanned image of a personal check for deposits. > >> in addition, the bills >>you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them >>gives them permission to access your account. > >This is not true of any of the bills I checked the back of. Wait a while, then. All of my monthly bills now say this. > >> There used >>to be a procedural fire wall between the payee and your account; >>it was the check clearing centers. These centers are what the Federal >>Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process. > >The Fed is attempting to make the process all electronic. I trust humans >about as little as I trust computers so I don't see much of a change in >security in this. Back when everything was on paper, someone could empty >your account with a fraud. All that has happened is that the tools have >changed a bit. Not only have the tools changed, but the speed of the transactions are now in picoseconds and the number of transactions made has increased enormously/minute. In addition, no human is in the middle of the process so there is nobody to notice if something goes wrong and push the stop button. a lot of this identify theft in the news is possible because no human needs to OK transactions. Banking is no longer local and most of it now is impersonal. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 06:39 In article <nav6u2dab8ldosfkqm40p3shn22253o7rn(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the >>piece of paper you sent to him; > > > You're an idiot. Checks still move between banks, dipshit. The banking system is in the process of eliminating that movement. The check clearing centers are overwhelmed... they say. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 06:44 In article <eruv57$vf3$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erukjm$8qk_005(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ersgq6$ui3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[.....] >>>The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one. >>>When it gets to the bank, >> >>My point is that the check NEVER gets back to the bank. This >>is a new procedure. The goal is to eliminate handling the >>paper checks. > >An electronic image of the check goes to the bank of the payee and then to >the payer's. This just stops the paper from going to the payee's bank. >The electronic image at your end is all that really matters it is a >legally valid copy and good enough to evidence. Now think about the physical piece of paper which includes all necessary information to electronically access your account. The payees all claim that they destroy the piece of paper. I don't trust that process. Instead of one piece of hardcopy representing a transaction, there are now oodles of electronic copies floating around the networking system. This has all ingredients for a mess. > > >>> they do all the work electronically. As a >>>result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done >>>electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line >>>banking will not protect me. >> >>The problem of security has now moved to anyone who receives a check >>for payment. All these people have to do is scan the check on their >>computer system and their bank will accept the scans as if the >>checks were physically deposited. Again, read the fine print >>on your bills. > >I read that fine print. There are no such words on the ones I checked. They are now on all of mine. The last one to convert was my TV cable bill. >BTW: there is an additional fact about the checks that adds security that >I will not mension here for obvious reasons. The check scanners are >intended to take checks that you took from your check book and wrote onto. >They would catch a laser printer output. And my mother just bought an ink pen that is supposed to prevent lifting their signatures. I don't understand this one but her area's latest alert is to use a special pen to sign checks. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 06:46 In article <eruub1$vf3$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erukqp$8qk_007(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" >>><nonsense(a)unsettled.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence >>>>of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments >>>>are without substance. >>> >>> >>> Never heard of a printer, eh? >> >>The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing >>has removed information. All pixelation removes information. > >Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a >microscope. Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you. There is more information to gather than simply the signature. Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating when s/he endorsed the check. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2007 06:51
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> So far, I haven't been >> able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will >> be able to use. > >How about PayPal, or the equivalent? Doesn't that involve online-edness? I smell a bad odour w.r.t. PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering financial data. I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing. They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been imported from Viet Nam and Mexico. My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy outright and have no information embeded that can tie the transaction back to a personal bank account. /BAH |