Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Cashless SocietyFollow

#52 Apr 03 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
$35 a month? That's it? lol, you should try looking into some of the plans in the US. The two different cell phone companies I've used that offer unlimited data plans charge $50 a month for each line. My boyfriend and I's cell phone plan, when we lived together, was almost $150 a month between us both having smart phones with unlimited data, and having an unlimited texting plan (which we had to have if we wanted to text, since the company we were with got rid of all the other texting plans). After we were both unemployed, even with my financial aid money, we couldn't afford it anymore so we had to downsize.


Well it is 35 for 5 GB - which, if I ever used it to say, stream movies or anything would be gone in a flash - after that you get charged by the kb. There are no unlimited plans. That said, I am on a flex plan, so I am basically paying 5 bucks a month for the option to use it if I really wanted to, but I make a point of almost never using it because I'm cheap as hell.

I didn't realize that you guys got dinged so hard in the states as well, just looking at the verizon plan, looks like Americans get a better deal than us for up to 2 GB but a worse deal than us from 2-5 GB

Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 2:45pm by Olorinus
#53 Apr 03 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
It really depends on who you go with honestly. I will give T-mobile credit for having some pretty good pay as you go options now. There's no contract, and one of their plans gives you unlimited data and texting for $30 a month. You only get 100 minutes of talk time though. Once I get a new sim card, I'm probably going to sign up for that deal (which is only available if you sign up via their website).

We get dinged pretty hard by banks too though. Most banks and credit unions I've seen charge a pretty hefty amount for a bank to bank account transfer. Usually around $30. If you want to transfer between accounts from the same institution though, it's free. So if I wanted to send money to someone, but didn't want to use a check of some sort, I'd probably try and do it via paypal. It'd be free that way.
#54 Apr 03 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
You'll have to pry my checkbook out of my cold dead hands! Smiley: mad

As several people have pointed out, paper does have certain advantages in that you can engage in a transaction with legal force *without* needing to have power and some form of network connection. That's useful for a variety of situations. Additionally, there is a privacy/security issue. While you are still providing some information to a vendor when paying with a check, you only have to do so with those you trust, and the check information itself is never transmitted electronically except between banking institutions. Contrast with electronic checks or credit/debit, where you're basically handing the account information needed to withdraw funds to the vendor in electronic form in an environment that by necessity must be directly attached to an active network. Instead of just trusting the banks to have good secure networks, you're putting your trust in some random shop set up in a mall which may not be there next year.

The privacy issue is a matter of marketing data IMO. Obviously, if you don't care about this then it doesn't matter to you. But some of us are concerned when it's not just the total amount of a sale that is in a format easily accessible for marketing purposes, but also exactly what you purchased. Go look at your credit card statement. If it's like mine, it includes an electronic receipt for whatever you purchased (for every purchase over the month). This is useful to verify that extra charges aren't appearing, but it also means that the credit card company knows everything you buy. And it's under no requirement not to use that information. Also, each vendor has an association between your name and what you purchased. Maybe this is just an annoyance to some, but it is information you should not be required to hand to someone just for buying something. Increasingly though, it's impossible to avoid if you use any form of electronic purchasing methodology.


Whether you use checks or cards is kind of a matter of choice, but you should still only use them at major vendors that you have a degree of trust in (at least enough to know they'll be around for you to get your money back if your account info gets stolen). And we can argue about which is "better" for that purpose. Getting rid of cash is incredibly problematic though. For the issue of use when services are out of course, but even more for the privacy issue. Right now, I can go to my bank and withdraw cash, then go to a store and pay for something with cash, and the bank doesn't know what I used the money for, and the store doesn't know who made the purchase. Take away cash and there is no way to ever buy something without someone having a record of that fact. IMO, that's an incredibly pervasive infringement of our privacy and I find it odd that so many people who would normally fight tooth and nail against governments infringing on their privacy seem blissfully willing to give it up for a small amount of convenience.


You're free to use that convenience if you want, but I don't think that the government should mandate it by eliminating cash. IMO, anything that limits Big Brother is a good thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 03 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
I wouldn't say it's secure. Anything I've paid with an electronic bank draft just needed my routing number and account number without any sort of verification, so with a copy of my paper check (like the cashier or whoever else handles them) someone could easily use my information for nefarious purposes. As soon as that check leaves your hand, your account information is out in the ether.

Crazily enough, my name and address are also on my checks, and you'd better believe that vendors keep that on file. Plus, what's stopping the bank from using that transaction information from your check? Banks are the ones who issue credit cards, you know.
#56 Apr 03 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I wouldn't say it's secure. Anything I've paid with an electronic bank draft just needed my routing number and account number without any sort of verification, so with a copy of my paper check (like the cashier or whoever else handles them) someone could easily use my information for nefarious purposes. As soon as that check leaves your hand, your account information is out in the ether.


Sure. But the same information is encoded on your debit card. So anyone with physical access to either a check or a debit card can access your account. Hence, needing to trust the people you do business with. The difference is that the data on the card can be picked up electronically. There are a host of methods, some of them very hard to detect, to read that data without having to steal the card itself. While I suppose someone could set up a hidden camera near a POS to read the routing numbers off checks being used, I've never heard of anyone actually doing this.

People generally do check fraud by creating accounts with bogus names and then passing the checks and taking advantage of the delay in fund withdrawal to maximize the amount they can steal. This is why the banks prefer folks using cards. But the checks are actually far less likely to result in *your* money being taken from you. Hence why I mentioned the issue of security.

Quote:
Crazily enough, my name and address are also on my checks, and you'd better believe that vendors keep that on file. Plus, what's stopping the bank from using that transaction information from your check? Banks are the ones who issue credit cards, you know.


It something which can be done, but is less likely to. In order for your bank to know what you purchased with your check, the vendor has to have some extra system set up to do this. Most vendors treat checks like cash purchases. They get the authorization to accept the check, put the check in the drawer (just like cash) and then drop it at their bank when they make their next deposit. The bank handles the details on the back end, but there's no innate way for the bank to know what was purchased with any given check.

Obviously, the vendor *can* implement a system which correlates checks to specific items purchased, but that's not an innate feature of using the check. Many vendors attempt to collect name, phone number, etc when you buy something from them no matter what method you use. Having a check with that information on it just lets them easily do this. But credit or debit purchases actually include the receipt with the financial information. That information is then available to both sides of the transaction and you kinda don't have a choice about it.

It's not about absolutes, but degrees. You're also missing that most credit/debit transactions should be replaced with cash, not a check. Checks are for occasional largish purchases either from specific vendors, or usually for paying bills of some sort. You don't buy a bag of chips and a soda with a check. You pay cash *or* use a credit/debit card. That's the most common comparison and IMO cash is much easier to use, much more secure, and absolutely more private.

Oh. And silly commercials aside, it's faster.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Apr 03 2012 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, but the only time I have ever dealt with identify theft, was when a housekeeper at the hotel I used to work at, stole one of my checks out of my purse when she was cleaning the room I was staying in. She only stole one, but that was enough. She took that check down to Fred Meyer (a franchise that Kroger bought a few years back, for those of you who don't live in Oregon) and bought over $250 worth of groceries. Now granted, the fact that she stole a check and not my debit card made it a lot easier to prove the identity theft. I first caught it checking my account online, and saw the purchase that I didn't remember making. I then went to look at the copy of the check, and saw a signature that didn't match mine, and my heart just about stopped. The local police were able to check the security footage from the store, and verify who it was that had stolen my check, and I got my money back and the housekeeper was fired and charged with identity theft and fraud. I have no idea what happened to her, as the only thing I had to do was go testify before the grand jury.

Anyways, my point is that it's just as easy to steal someone's bank information with a check as it is with a debit card. In fact, I'd venture to say that it'd be a lot easier to steal it with a check, as all the information (routing number and account number, like Sweetums said) is right there. Stealing that information with a debit card requires a bunch of technology that I fully admit, I know very little about.
#58 Apr 03 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
But credit or debit purchases actually include the receipt with the financial information.
Not automatically. It depends on the POS equipment. There are many places where you use your debit or credit card and it's a separate piece of paper from the actual receipt because the POS and the debit/credit terminal aren't linked.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#59 Apr 03 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Anyways, my point is that it's just as easy to steal someone's bank information with a check as it is with a debit card.


If someone gains physical access to either, then it's exactly as easy. The point is that there are methods to steal that information when you're using a card electronically that don't exist when using a check (or are less likely to occur when using a check).

Quote:
In fact, I'd venture to say that it'd be a lot easier to steal it with a check, as all the information (routing number and account number, like Sweetums said) is right there. Stealing that information with a debit card requires a bunch of technology that I fully admit, I know very little about.


In this case though, what you don't know can really hurt you. Because you can see the information printed on the check, you assume that it's "right there" and thus easier for a thief to get. But cards have that same data on them. It's just written in a form for an electronic device to read. But because of this, someone can read it with an electronic device even if you aren't aware of it. Magnetic strips can be read (but the reader has to be pretty close). Common methods involve putting a scanner somewhere close to where people use their cards (like a fake bezel around an ATM machine, or any POS system). Theoretically, you could swipe a reader close to someone's wallet or purse and read any cards the person has. And that's with a magnetic strip. Don't get me started on the RFID cards (like the ones you "wave" in front of the gas pump to pay your gas). Don't get those. Ever. I'm not kidding. Anyone within about 5 feet (or more!) can just read your card easily.


You also have to understand how people use that banking information. While the common thief (like in your case) might steal a card or check and then go out on a spending spree, the professional is looking at longer term use. Stealing bank routing codes alone isn't terribly useful because you have to be a recognized vendor to withdraw from it. Normally, only banks can use them to get money from accounts at other banks. Even when you use a routing number to write an "e-check", what actually happens on the other end is the guy you write it to sends it to his bank, which then routes the money out (just like what happens with a physical check). That's a massive money trail which requires some serious work to get around.

If you're a thief and you hack into some online businesses records, you're most interested in the credit and debit card numbers. Because those can be used to make fake cards, which can be sold to other people, who in turn can use them to get free money at POS system. No banks are involved (directly) in the transaction, and your security is in the hands of the guy working the counter at that POS. And let's face it, people using stolen/fake cards will tend to use them in places with the least security possible.

At the end of the day, you can be a victim of theft or ID fraud no matter what you do. However, IMO the greatest risk factor is when you habitually use a credit/debit card for random day to day transactions. That maximizes your exposure to potential theft, and minimizes the chance of your bank noticing anything and alerting you before a potentially large amount of money has been stolen. Cash is much much better to use for those day to day transactions (and also makes it easier to curtail your own spending). We can debate checks versus credit cards and there are valid points in both directions, but credit cards versus cash? Cash should *always* be an option.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Apr 03 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
But credit or debit purchases actually include the receipt with the financial information.
Not automatically. It depends on the POS equipment. There are many places where you use your debit or credit card and it's a separate piece of paper from the actual receipt because the POS and the debit/credit terminal aren't linked.


Sure. But in order from "most likely to include purchase information with the financial transaction to least likely" it goes: Credit cards -> debit cards -> checks -> cash. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Apr 03 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
**
589 posts
Or you can pay off a cashier/waitress that is making jack crap to snap a pic with a camera phone of either check or card and that is as low tech it gets and is far more likely to happen then hackers getting it. Even that would still be a drop in the bucket when most theft comes from people not using a shredder, whats 30 or 40 mins of dumpster diving when it can net you thousands.
#62 Apr 03 2012 at 11:18 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji, I will agree with you on the point about RFID chips at least. Those things make me incredibly uncomfortable. I don't know why anyone would want one on their passport or driver's license, and I REALLY don't know why anyone would voluntarily get one implanted in their body. That's an entirely different topic though.
#63 Apr 04 2012 at 1:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
I'd much rather have someone steal my credit card number than my bank account number (I generally dont use debit cards for many of the same reasons I dont use checks). If someone steals my credit card number, I'm not actually out any money. I might have some automatic payments that I'll have to fix, but they won't bounce from a drained account. I also have multiple credit cards from different issuers (and zero credit card debt), so I wouldn't be waiting for the ability to use my money. If a merchant defrauds me, it's a lot easier, or at least cheaper, to do a chargeback than a stop check. They get too many of those? They lose their merchant account.

All in all, it's easier to get a new credit or debit card number than a new bank account number.

I'm not in favor of abolishing cash simply because dealers don't take plastic

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 2:35am by Sweetums
#64 Apr 04 2012 at 2:55 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Also, you don't need to pay to transfer money between banks. I transfer between different ones all the time.

If your bank charges for outgoing ACH transfers or doesn't even offer them, your bank sucks.

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 4:26am by Sweetums
#65 Apr 04 2012 at 3:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Yeah, there's a lot of variety of bank fee structures between financial institutions. Most of the largest banks in Australia have nasty fees in comparison to most people's cash in their accounts that would bring in interest. That it, bank interest won't cover bank fees for most people for many banks. Credit Unions and Mutual funds are usually better. I myself have changed to a pure internet bank, (ING) checking that its deposits are covered by the Australian Government guarantee (up to $150k). I have no fees and receive no interest on my everyday transaction account. I have some savings trickling off to a savings account with no card attached with them.

For the bulk of my savings, modest as they are, I put that to accrue in a different internet bank (Ubank - I checked it's backed by a large established traditional bank and its deposits are also gov. guaranteed). I chose that one because the interest is paid out monthly and can compound.
#66 Apr 04 2012 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
I only use credit unions, and every credit union I've ever had a membership with has charged to transfer money between banks. I very rarely need to use that service, so I'll take the perks of using a credit union over a bank, in exchange for getting charged for a service I almost never use (that you have to use to get charged for, just to clarify).
#67 Apr 04 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I myself have changed to a pure internet bank, (ING)
This one?

Because if so, we have the same bank. Only it's not purely internet here.
#68 Apr 04 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I only use credit unions, and every credit union I've ever had a membership with has charged to transfer money between banks. I very rarely need to use that service, so I'll take the perks of using a credit union over a bank, in exchange for getting charged for a service I almost never use (that you have to use to get charged for, just to clarify).
I bank with USAA and I've been nothing but pleased.

Banks aren't inherently bad, and credit unions aren't inherently good.
#69 Apr 04 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
but both do get inherently rich with or without cash.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#70 Apr 04 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
Sweetums wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I only use credit unions, and every credit union I've ever had a membership with has charged to transfer money between banks. I very rarely need to use that service, so I'll take the perks of using a credit union over a bank, in exchange for getting charged for a service I almost never use (that you have to use to get charged for, just to clarify).
I bank with USAA and I've been nothing but pleased.

Banks aren't inherently bad, and credit unions aren't inherently good.


Yeah I've actually had way better experiences with my bank than with credit unions. My bank treats me like gold... when I tried to sign up for a credit union they made me cry. (I was young and stressed out, but still not cool)

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 4:05pm by Olorinus
#71 Apr 04 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Olorinus wrote:
when I tried to sign up for a credit union they made me cry. (I was young and stressed out, but still not cool)


Personally I do most of my work with a local credit union. But all in all I don't notice much different between them and the local banks. I haven't done much business with the large national banks.

I know that credit unions (at least, locally) are kind of "exclusive" but they usually find a way to get you to open an account. Many seemed to start out as a "Only XX company employes" then branched to "Family of XX employes" now you show up and they find some way to qualify you for opening an account there.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#72 Apr 05 2012 at 1:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Yes Aethien, that ING. They don't have any physical branches in Australia, I don't think. Anyway, my accounts with them are purely internet, with a 24/7 phone line to them to sort out problems. Their phone line has been really useful and friendly.
#73 Apr 06 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I guess as an addendum a bank account number and a debit card number are certainly not equivalent. If a thief has a check, they'd have all the information they'd need to call the bank. Since it also lists a name and address, they could look up any corroborating information in case there were security questions involved. However, these are honestly not that hard to bypass since I've legitimately forgotten the answer to one before because Wells Fargo, who does my company's 401k, has this stupid system where you cannot choose which questions to answer. If they don't have a Facebook, you can often search public records databases and an address makes this MUCH easier.

In this respect, debit cards are essentially anonymous. There's no billing address to narrow searches, and if you call the bank with just your card number to identify yourself the representative will just laugh at you. They're also MUCH easier to cancel because you don't have to keep them open for silly little things like direct deposit.
#74 Apr 06 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I guess as an addendum a bank account number and a debit card number are certainly not equivalent. If a thief has a check, they'd have all the information they'd need to call the bank. Since it also lists a name and address, they could look up any corroborating information in case there were security questions involved. However, these are honestly not that hard to bypass since I've legitimately forgotten the answer to one before because Wells Fargo, who does my company's 401k, has this stupid system where you cannot choose which questions to answer. If they don't have a Facebook, you can often search public records databases and an address makes this MUCH easier.

In this respect, debit cards are essentially anonymous. There's no billing address to narrow searches, and if you call the bank with just your card number to identify yourself the representative will just laugh at you. They're also MUCH easier to cancel because you don't have to keep them open for silly little things like direct deposit.


People using bank/account information they stole generally don't call the banks though. They use electronic and online systems, which use the number on the card/check. I suppose if you're talking about ID theft in general, the information on a check could be useful, but that's separate from the question of security of your money from theft. The casual thief is always going to prefer credit cards to debit or checks because he can run around using it until the card doesn't clear anymore and get free stuff. The other two both require additional stuff (pin and/or ID) which a casual thief isn't going to bother with. A professional is going to make use of any credit card numbers and bank routing numbers he can get his hands on. But those guys usually get the numbers electronically, not physically. They pay folks to steal numbers for them. They need a lot of them to cover the overhead of maintaining bogus IDs, bank accounts, front businesses, etc. The occasional individual who happens to write down a check number at a cash register just isn't on the radar screen for them. The guy they can get to attach a scanner to the register to record the number of every card used *is*.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Apr 08 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
More and more credit cards are using pins now. I see it going further in that direction.
#76 Apr 09 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Sweetums wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I only use credit unions, and every credit union I've ever had a membership with has charged to transfer money between banks. I very rarely need to use that service, so I'll take the perks of using a credit union over a bank, in exchange for getting charged for a service I almost never use (that you have to use to get charged for, just to clarify).
I bank with USAA and I've been nothing but pleased.

Banks aren't inherently bad, and credit unions aren't inherently good.


I suppose that's true, I've just heard very few good things about national banks. Bank of America and USBank in particular are pretty nasty. USBank I have personal experience with. Any institution that charges you PER DAY for having your account overdrawn is just evil imo.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 343 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (343)