Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/28/2002 9:24:23 PM EST
I read it a short while ago, someone posting about a supermarket wanting a fingerprint for something... and... well... it's hit here! Stopped by my local HEB (the second or third largest grocery story chain in the country... but it's only in Texas!) to cash a check (cheaper than using an ATM) like I've done probably hundreds of times, when I see some little sign printed and taped to the stalls at the customer service counter. Something to the point of requiring an inkless thumbprint on any check for any transaction. I thought, WTF? Noticed the guy ahead of me had written a check for something, and could see the faint mark of his thumbprint on his check. A small inkpad thing was there on the counter. So he finishes up and leaves, and I ask the kid behind the counter if I want to cash a check, I gotta put my thumbprint on it? Yes, he says. No thanks, I'll use an ATM, I says. I leave. This made me feel very weird. I'm not much for being paranoid or anything of that sort. They say it's for your protection, to help prevent fraud. How is my damn thumbprint on MY check going to do ANYTHING?? I don't really get it. My prints aren't on file with my bank. Nor are anyone else's. They're not on file with ANYONE that I know of. It feels a little... violating... having to put a fingerprint on MY check to get MY money. Shit, I've got half a dozen forms of ID they could ask for. I'll probably write a letter to them denouncing the policy. I am kinda torn on how to feel about it. After all, it's MY thumbprint, it's MY money, and it's MY check.... but the only institution that will ever see that check is who I write it to, their bank, and my bank. Or is it? How would you guys feel about being fingerprinted when you're writing a check? Violated? Paranoid? Wronged? However I feel about it, I don't like it.
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 9:27:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/28/2002 9:29:13 PM EST by DScottHewitt]
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q: This made me feel very weird. I'm not much for being paranoid or anything of that sort. They say it's for your protection, to help prevent fraud. How is my damn thumbprint on MY check going to do ANYTHING?? I don't really get it. My prints aren't on file with my bank. Nor are anyone else's. They're not on file with ANYONE that I know of. It feels a little... violating... having to put a fingerprint on MY check to get MY money. Shit, I've got half a dozen forms of ID they could ask for. I'll probably write a letter to them denouncing the policy. I am kinda torn on how to feel about it. After all, it's MY thumbprint, it's MY money, and it's MY check.... but the only institution that will ever see that check is who I write it to, their bank, and my bank. Or is it?
View Quote
Well, the theory is they can verify if someone else cashed the check. Like if you dispute it later. They can print you, confirm it is not your print on the check. Then, they can confirm the crook who did it, did it when they catch him/her. The crook's print is more likely to be on file as well. So can make it easier to get a suspect. Plus, hard to say "I didn't do it" that way when they catch the crook..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 9:32:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 10:04:21 PM EST
I guess you could always carry around a tube of superglue.....
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 10:38:08 PM EST
The same logic used for gun registration. [b]You're already a suspect.[/b] Your fingerprint will be filed with the 'Bureau Of Potential Check Fraud Offenders' and you actions will be monitored closely. Your right to conduct financial transactions will be promptly rescinded should you refuse to be fingerprinted. Remember, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. It's for your protection. And the check is in the mail.
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 10:42:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: The same logic used for gun registration. [b]You're already a suspect.[/b] Your fingerprint will be filed with the 'Bureau Of Potential Check Fraud Offenders' and you actions will be monitored closely. Your right to conduct financial transactions will be promptly rescinded should you refuse to be fingerprinted. Remember, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. It's for your protection. And the check is in the mail.
View Quote
I haven't seen any mention of this new bureau. Most people are gonna be more reluctant to write a check on another person's account if they have to leave a fingerprint. I would think, anyway. Maybe not some of the Darwin people..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 11:01:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Most people are gonna be more reluctant to write a check on another person's account if they have to leave a fingerprint. I would think, anyway. Maybe not some of the Darwin people..... Scott
View Quote
If I forge a $500 check and put my fingerprint on it, how will that stop me from collecting the money and walking out the door? The bank doesn't have my fingerprint on file, nor the person who the check is supposedly written to like [b]Matthew_Q[/b] said. Bank account numbers, credit card numbers, PIN numbers, social security numbers... ALL are easily obtained records for a hacker to steal and use electronically. And when electronic fingerprint images become treated as nonchalantly as your social security and credit card numbers are now by many businesses, hackers will very soon have YOUR electronic fingerprint to forge any transaction they want. That's just one less bit of your personal identity that will be stolen (or sold) in blocks like your address and phone numbers are now. But I guess that's just my tinfoil hat talking. [;)]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:18:30 AM EST
Dang, Can't help but think of the movie last night, 'Catch Me If You Can'. Great flick with Leo Decrapio & Tom Hanks. True story about a guy that forged/stole around 4 million dollars worth of checks in the late '60's, before he was 20 years old. Posed as a pilot, doctor, lawyer, teacher..... Regardless of "Security" features, I don't like the thought of givin' a thumbprint to cash a fricken check.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 4:30:28 AM EST
Over 25 years ago I wanted a cash advance on my MasterCard. I went to the bank and they wanted my thumbprint on the back of the check. I told them to shove it and canceled the transaction. I never give out any personal info to these numbnutz.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 5:08:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 5:57:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 5:59:13 AM EST by hanau]
if you where military big brother already has your fingerprints and your dna if you have served in the last 10 years,so then is really going to matter if your fingerprint is on it or not since big brother already has them? know if there is no record of your fingerprints on any type of file i would tell them to got to hell,but what are you going to do if you get a personnel check from someone and you are going to the bank and try to cash it,they say thumb print please? you walk out or give it up? plus the bank is trying to protect there intrest in that little piece of paper.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:01:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:04:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 6:05:35 AM EST by natez]
Identity Theft and Forgery cases are the fastest growing group of criminal offenses. I go through our daily offense reports for trend analysis, and I see more of these than anything else. Most are unsolvable because there is no way to ID the suspect. Anyone can be a victim; several of our officers have suffered through this, too. Demographically, I'd say about 5% of the population has probably suffered this in the last few years. Requiring a thumbprint means nothing if the check is not forged. If it is, and the suspect has ever been arrested, then the case will most likely be solved. Anyone arrested for a jailable offense will have prints, including a thumbprint, on file. If you don't want to participate, use a check card or withdraw enough cash to cover your groceries. LE has been encouraging businesses to do this for several years because LE cannot solve these cases, and businesses have been losing alot of money. When I worked the streets, I had an HEB in my beat and a couple of banks, and they would completely kill a day about once a month or so when they would bring a stack of these to the station, and I would have to do a stack of Forgery reports, essentially taking me off the street for the whole shift. Many LE agencies are refusing to even waste time on these unless the business take some sort of steps to secure their financial transactions. If you don't like it, then what do you propose as an alternative to prevent the business community from losing billions of dollars every year and to allow LE to identify and arrests suspects for these crimes?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:44:58 AM EST
I don't think it has anything to do with you writing the check, it is to stop criminals from stealing your checkbook and writing checks on your account. As long as a check isn't disputed then nobody will probably ever look at the fingerprint. Think of it this way, if you stole someones checkbook and you went to write a check somewhere would you do it if they made you put your fingerprint on the check that you just stole? It would greatly increase the chances of you getting caught. People who steal things don't usually just do it once, and the majority of criminals already have a criminal record of some sort and have been fingerprinted in the past. It really is a security feature to protect you from getting money stolen out of your account. I hate checks anyway, and rarely write one. I almost exclusively use cash for my everyday transactions.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:47:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By natez: If you don't like it, then what do you propose as an alternative to prevent the business community from losing billions of dollars every year and to allow LE to identify and arrests suspects for these crimes?
View Quote
Off the top of my head: 1) Let the businesses fail on their own stupity. WAAAAY too many times I've seen banks treat MY account number and SS number nonchalantly [u]right before my eyes[/u] - like calling out my SS number and account number in processing my work loud enough for people behind me to hear. Fucking dipshit tellers. Or asking people to put their name, address and phone number on photo envelopes and putting them out where anyone can search through them. Why the f@ck does anyone need my name, address and phone number to buy batteries or process photos at Target? [;D] 2) Make room in prison by decriminalizing marijuana and releasing all small-time pot offenders. 3) Abolish plea bargaining. Commit fraud - go to jail. 4) Abolish probation. Commit fraud - go to jail for a lot longer. 5) In the cases of repeat offenders - tattoo the word "FRAUD" across their forehead and hands. 6) Make fingerprinting VOLUNTARY but give those who choose not to do it less check-fraud guarantee coverage. If someone wants to take the risk of having THEIR account raided for lack of a fingerprint, so be it. But let it be MY choice.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:47:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Exactly right. If the bank built a database of fingerprints, and procured machinery to quickly and accurately scan fingerprints, the protection argument would hold water.
View Quote
This isn't the purpose, like I stated above. The purpose is to get the fingerprint of someone if they steal your checks. Why would the bank want to keep a database? They have little to gain from the expense of keeping it. They're a business just like everything else and if it isn't going to help their bottom line then why would they want to do it?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:56:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: It really is a security feature to protect you from getting money stolen out of your account.
View Quote
It's for my own good? I've had money stolen from my account because a F@CKSTICK BANK TELLER read off my SS# and bank account number loud enough for the whole damn bank lobby to hear. Less than two hours later I had money STOLEN from my account through an electronic transfer at that same bank office. The weak link is the shit-for-brains PEOPLE behind the counter who treat my personal information like toilet paper. I don't care about protecting my checks - damn assholes will ALWAYS find a way to steal my money. I worry about the businesses that end up getting hacked and having my electronic fingerprint record stolen - or worse yet having that business [b]SELL[/b] my records to a marketing clearing house like they already do with my name, address and phone number which now is probably in the hands of HUNDREDS of businesses that I have no clue about.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:04:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I worry about the businesses that end up getting hacked and having my electronic fingerprint record stolen - or worse yet having that business [b]SELL[/b] my records to a marketing clearing house like they already do with my name, address and phone number which now is probably in the hands of HUNDREDS of businesses that I have no clue about.
View Quote
Well, you don't need to worry about your bank then, because they don't have any electronic fingerprint records. You don't want anyone to have your name, address and phone number? Are you in the phone book? Is your name on your mailbox? Is your mailbox secured so that mail can't be taken out except by you? Sounds like it's tinfoil hat time!
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:08:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By natez: If you don't like it, then what do you propose as an alternative to prevent the business community from losing billions of dollars every year and to allow LE to identify and arrests suspects for these crimes?
View Quote
Off the top of my head: 1) Let the businesses fail on their own stupity. WAAAAY too many times I've seen banks treat MY account number and SS number nonchalantly [u]right before my eyes[/u] - like calling out my SS number and account number in processing my work loud enough for people behind me to hear. Fucking dipshit tellers. Or asking people to put their name, address and phone number on photo envelopes and putting them out where anyone can search through them. Why the f@ck does anyone need my name, address and phone number to buy batteries or process photos at Target? [;D] 2) Make room in prison by decriminalizing marijuana and releasing all small-time pot offenders. 3) Abolish plea bargaining. Commit fraud - go to jail. 4) Abolish probation. Commit fraud - go to jail for a lot longer. 5) In the cases of repeat offenders - tattoo the word "FRAUD" across their forehead and hands. 6) Make fingerprinting VOLUNTARY but give those who choose not to do it less check-fraud guarantee coverage. If someone wants to take the risk of having THEIR account raided for lack of a fingerprint, so be it. But let it be MY choice.
View Quote
What's the prison vacancy rate where you live? Here, we not only don't have much spare room, we also don't seem to have the dough to keep felons where they belong. In case anyone forgot, Gov. Gray Davis was Chief of Staff for Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:24:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I worry about the businesses that end up getting hacked and having my electronic fingerprint record stolen - or worse yet having that business [b]SELL[/b] my records to a marketing clearing house like they already do with my name, address and phone number which now is probably in the hands of HUNDREDS of businesses that I have no clue about.
View Quote
Well, you don't need to worry about your bank then, because they don't have any electronic fingerprint records.
View Quote
Yet.
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Are you in the phone book? Is your name on your mailbox? Is your mailbox secured so that mail can't be taken out except by you?
View Quote
No. No. Yes.
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Sounds like it's tinfoil hat time!
View Quote
When YOUR personal records are publically dispersed because of bank employee incompetence, it's not "tinfoil hat time" - it's "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" time.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:31:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I don't think it has anything to do with you writing the check, it is to stop criminals from stealing your checkbook and writing checks on your account. As long as a check isn't disputed then nobody will probably ever look at the fingerprint. ... It really is a security feature to protect you from getting money stolen out of your account.
View Quote
Just more "if you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to worry about" excuses to justify a tolitarian police state - "security" always justifies any violation of privacy of individuals. I don't use direct deposit, but it if I have to give a thumbprint to cash a non-personal check like a paycheck or tax credit there's going to be hell to pay. No fucking way. The line is drawn. It seems we have to draw a line around [b]everything[/b] these days.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:47:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: If I forge a $500 check and put my fingerprint on it, how will that stop me from collecting the money and walking out the door? The bank doesn't have my fingerprint on file, nor the person who the check is supposedly written to like [b]Matthew_Q[/b] said. Bank account numbers, credit card numbers, PIN numbers, social security numbers... ALL are easily obtained records for a hacker to steal and use electronically. And when electronic fingerprint images become treated as nonchalantly as your social security and credit card numbers are now by many businesses, hackers will very soon have YOUR electronic fingerprint to forge any transaction they want. That's just one less bit of your personal identity that will be stolen (or sold) in blocks like your address and phone numbers are now. But I guess that's just my tinfoil hat talking. [;)]
View Quote
I'm just saying if it has the [b]CROOK'S[/b] fingerprint on it, it might be easier to track them down. Especially if they have had previous police contact. Only option is use cash only, if you do not want to do it, since the idea seems to be spreading and sooner (more likely) or later, it will be universal. Of course, if someone steals a wallet full of cash, harder to identify cash. Unless they fingerprint for- Well, it is a slippery slope. Not saying it is necessarily a good idea, just understand the basic idea behind it..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:48:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By parshooter: Dang, Can't help but think of the movie last night, 'Catch Me If You Can'. Great flick with Leo Decrapio & Tom Hanks. True story about a guy that forged/stole around 4 million dollars worth of checks in the late '60's, before he was 20 years old. Posed as a pilot, doctor, lawyer, teacher..... Regardless of "Security" features, I don't like the thought of givin' a thumbprint to cash a fricken check.
View Quote
Haven't seen the movie, but the scene in the trailer where he uses the model kit decal sheet to fake an airline check is hilarious..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:50:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By hanau: if you where military big brother already has your fingerprints and your dna if you have served in the last 10 years,so then is really going to matter if your fingerprint is on it or not since big brother already has them? know if there is no record of your fingerprints on any type of file i would tell them to got to hell,but what are you going to do if you get a personnel check from someone and you are going to the bank and try to cash it,they say thumb print please? you walk out or give it up? plus the bank is trying to protect there intrest in that little piece of paper.
View Quote
Even if you never made it past MEPS, your stuff has been collected..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:54:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Or asking people to put their name, address and phone number on photo envelopes and putting them out where anyone can search through them. Why the f@ck does anyone need my name, address and phone number to buy batteries or process photos at Target? [;D]
View Quote
The photo processing envelopes has your name and stuff so they contact you if you do not pick up your pictures. If you are for sure going to pick them up, just put your last name. (The send out envelopes at Wally World have tear off number thingies that match the number on the envelope.) Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:18:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I worry about the businesses that end up getting hacked and having my electronic fingerprint record stolen - or worse yet having that business [b]SELL[/b] my records to a marketing clearing house like they already do with my name, address and phone number which now is probably in the hands of HUNDREDS of businesses that I have no clue about.
View Quote
Well, you don't need to worry about your bank then, because they don't have any electronic fingerprint records.
View Quote
Yet.
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Are you in the phone book? Is your name on your mailbox? Is your mailbox secured so that mail can't be taken out except by you?
View Quote
No. No. Yes.
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Sounds like it's tinfoil hat time!
View Quote
When YOUR personal records are publically dispersed because of bank employee incompetence, it's not "tinfoil hat time" - it's "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" time.
View Quote
Then don't use banks and that will solve all of your problems. Take your paycheck to a check casher and pay everything with cash and postal money orders. I don't care either way. I was just explaining that the purpose of the fingerprint wasn't to build some huge databank of fingerprints at the bank. If you want to complain then go to your bank. If you don't like the policies of your grocery store then go to a different grocery store. Blaming a business for trying to keep crooks from stealing your money is a little silly in my opinion.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:25:59 AM EST
guilty till proven innocent "it's for your own good" "if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide" blah blah blah blah blah
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:05:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I was just explaining that the purpose of the fingerprint wasn't to build some huge databank of fingerprints at the bank.
View Quote
And the purpose of gun registration is not to build some huge databank of gunowners for later confiscation. [rolleyes]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Blaming a business for trying to keep crooks from stealing your money is a little silly in my opinion.
View Quote
They aren't interested in MY money. Only THEIR money when they have to pay higher insurance for NOT having fingerprint databases (to eventually sell).
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:13:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I was just explaining that the purpose of the fingerprint wasn't to build some huge databank of fingerprints at the bank.
View Quote
And the purpose of gun registration is not to build some huge databank of gunowners for later confiscation. [rolleyes]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Blaming a business for trying to keep crooks from stealing your money is a little silly in my opinion.
View Quote
They aren't interested in MY money. Only THEIR money when they have to pay higher insurance for NOT having fingerprint databases (to eventually sell).
View Quote
Like I said earlier, "tinfoil hat time!" You guys are comical sometimes.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:17:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 9:25:50 AM EST by DScottHewitt]
Kalifornistan will require [b]IN THREE DAYS!!!!![/b] a thumb-print to purchase a firearm..... From GlockTalk:
[i]Originally posted by raygun [/i] [B]The state is saying that a California drivers license or ID isn't valid. I don't see why Big 5 would be asking for two forms of ID? There is no law requiring two forms of photo ID only proof of residency by one of the following: A lease or deed to your property with the address you are stating where you live. A utility bill within 90 days, or military orders with a permanent duty station. This amounts to nothing but more California harrasment! Is your wife or girfreind or roommate not on the lease or utility bills? Well he or she can't legally buy a gun. What about college kids and everyone else who doesn't have these documents? California just eliminated a bunch of people from buying guns in this state. [red]We will also need to give a thumb print on the DROS form in 2003 because as gun owners we are guilty until proven innocent.[/red] From the CA DOJ website: Effective January 1, 2003, provides that no firearms dealer may deliver a handgun without first requiring the recipient of that handgun to correctly and properly perform a safe handling demonstration with that handgun. The firearms dealer is required to retain an affidavit signed by himself/herself and the handgun recipient as proof of compliance. Failure to comply may result in removal of the firearms dealer from the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. Persons who are exempt for the HSC requirement are also exempt from the safety handling demonstration requirements (PC 12071(b)(8). [red]Effective January 1, 2003, requires each person taking delivery of a firearm from a firearms dealer to provide his/her right thumbprint on the Dealers Record of Sale form (PC 12077).[/red] Effective January 1, 2003 requires each firearms dealer delivering a handgun to obtain proof of residency from the handgun recipient. Satisfactory proof of residency may include a utility bill from within the three months prior to the delivery, a residential lease, a property deed, military permanent duty station orders indicating assignment within this state, or other evidence of residency as permitted by the DOJ. The firearms dealer is required to retain the residency documentation as proof of compliance. Failure to comply may result in removal of the firearms dealer from the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers (PC 12071 (b)(8) (C). [/B]
View Quote
Scott EDIT: Red highlights my addendum.....
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:32:06 AM EST
If you don't like it DON'T USE CHECKS. It is really that simple. This is not some government conspiracry; this is private industry realizing that they are never going to recover any of the money they are losing every year unless they do something to psitively identify the person cashing or paying with a check. Your prints are already on the check, but there is not very high sucess rate for recovering them, and the cashier's prints are on it, as well as three or four other folks from the bank, so there will be a little difficulty sorting out what is what. Again, if you don't like it, and this is your own nutty "line in the sand," then don't do business with those companies (of course, at this rate, companies that choose not to do something about forgery will wind up very unprofitable). Police have been encouraging businesses to do this because it is about the only way they are ever going to start reduce their losses to forged checks. The solutions presented thus far are not going to work. Decriminalizing Marihuana doesn't have a thing to do with this; a thief is a thief is a thief. Locking them up helps, but most thieves and forgers don't go away for that long, and even if they got the maximum sentence, wouldn't be gone for long. There will probably always be thefts of one type or another. The best way to eliminate theft is to make it harder to steal stuff; basic crime prevention (like locking things up) and making it tougher to get away with (like thumbprints on checks, or cash registers that detect counterfeit currency). The thieves will always find something else to steal. If it bothers you that much, stick to cash.
Top Top