5 ms·

It would be great if banks and other financial institutions had to follow libel laws. Why isn't a bank stating that you're dead when you're clearly not a clear

by jgeada 6y ago

It would be great if banks and other financial institutions had to follow libel laws. Why isn't a bank stating that you're dead when you're clearly not a clear case of libel? In a similar manner, most cases of what is called "identity theft" are really just bank libel: a bank mistaking you for someone else and making false statements about your credit worthiness or reassigning your assets.

ghouse 6y ago
And if you've had your identity stolen, the banks are the victim of that crime. You become the victim not from the thief's actions, but the actions of the banks and other institutions that were swindled by the criminal.
- jgeada 6y ago
  It is the bank's job to be doing due diligence and validating identities and authentication and authorizations(1), that is why they charge us for the privilege of keeping our money. They just figured it is cheaper to skip that validation and attempt to extort you for their losses caused by their incompetence. In the US banks have managed to pass laws so they're entitled only to upsides of risk taking but pass on all downsides to customers and the public. (1) standard security protocol stuff: - identity: I am person X - authentication: I prove that the person claiming to be X is actually X (in the US, this step is almost always skipped because, hey, they lobby government and you don't) - authorization: the person that has been confirmed to be X has permissions to do the task they're attempting to do
  - kwhitefoot 6y ago
    No bank has ever charged me to hold my money. I'm 64 and lived the first half of my life in England and since then in Norway. The only charges I have ever paid were for borrowing money. Is it that the UK and Norway are unusual in not charging or is it the US that is unusual in charging?
    - franga2000 6y ago
      I can add 3 EU countries I'm familiar with to the list of places where banks charge a fee for running an account. It's usually pretty low and waived for many groups (students, elderly, unemployed...), but still there. A non-trivial amout of course also comes from various service fees like ATM withdrawals, e-banking, various reports, etc., which is where I assume your bank makes its money.
      - kwhitefoot 6y ago
        My banks don't charge for any of those things either (Santander in the UK, SBanken in Norway). Santander does charge for unexpectedly going into the red I believe but SBanken just charges you interest on overdrafts up to 5000 NOK/ 500 EU). SBanken also makes a little money managing the little I have invested in funds. Santander is making money out of me because I am resident in Norway it doesn't pay interest unless you are resident in the UK
    - jgeada 6y ago
      Most banks in the US either charge a fee, or waive it if you have enough money in your account(s). That too is a fee, as the interest they pay on your money is many basis points lower than the interest they charge for lending your money to someone else. In my opinion, anybody that thinks they have a bank account "for free" doesn't know how to read financial statements. Banks are not charities.
njarboe 6y ago
The reason is because of the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" of 1970 said that Credit Reporting Agencies (CRA) are not liable for any errors if they are not malicious. And the act preempts any State laws that might impose other more restrictive laws on CRAs. From a short publication on the "Fair Credit Reporting Act": "Defamation, privacy, and negligence claims. The FCRA specifically bars defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims that concern the reporting of information from being brought against any CRA, any user of a consumer report, or any furnisher of reported information, except for false information furnished with malice or willfully intended to injure the consumer (15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e); see, for example, Thornton v. Equifax, Inc., 619 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 1980)). For a state-law claim to stand under this provision, a defendant’s misconduct must be truly malicious and not simply careless (see Ross v. FDIC, 625 F.3d 808, 817 (4th Cir. 2010))." See [1] for the whole document: https://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/e42f45d6-a8c6-43fc-a3d7-3fd302b447c6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/1d5beeac-8049-48ec-9832-a45699daedeb/Understanding%20the%20FCRA.pdf https://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/e42f45d6-a8c6-43f...
jedberg 6y ago
There is a great comedy routine about identity theft. It's by Mitchell and Webb. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E Don't keep reading if you don't want a spoiler. . . . . The gist of it is that the customer says "this sounds like a bank robbery, not identity theft. I have my identity, but you don't have the money, so it sounds like they stole your money, not my identity".

by jgeada 6y ago

ghouse 6y ago

And if you've had your identity stolen, the banks are the victim of that crime. You become the victim not from the thief's actions, but the actions of the banks and other institutions that were swindled by the criminal.

jgeada 6y ago
It is the bank's job to be doing due diligence and validating identities and authentication and authorizations(1), that is why they charge us for the privilege of keeping our money. They just figured it is cheaper to skip that validation and attempt to extort you for their losses caused by their incompetence. In the US banks have managed to pass laws so they're entitled only to upsides of risk taking but pass on all downsides to customers and the public. (1) standard security protocol stuff: - identity: I am person X - authentication: I prove that the person claiming to be X is actually X (in the US, this step is almost always skipped because, hey, they lobby government and you don't) - authorization: the person that has been confirmed to be X has permissions to do the task they're attempting to do
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  No bank has ever charged me to hold my money. I'm 64 and lived the first half of my life in England and since then in Norway. The only charges I have ever paid were for borrowing money. Is it that the UK and Norway are unusual in not charging or is it the US that is unusual in charging?
  - franga2000 6y ago
    I can add 3 EU countries I'm familiar with to the list of places where banks charge a fee for running an account. It's usually pretty low and waived for many groups (students, elderly, unemployed...), but still there. A non-trivial amout of course also comes from various service fees like ATM withdrawals, e-banking, various reports, etc., which is where I assume your bank makes its money.
    - kwhitefoot 6y ago
      My banks don't charge for any of those things either (Santander in the UK, SBanken in Norway). Santander does charge for unexpectedly going into the red I believe but SBanken just charges you interest on overdrafts up to 5000 NOK/ 500 EU). SBanken also makes a little money managing the little I have invested in funds. Santander is making money out of me because I am resident in Norway it doesn't pay interest unless you are resident in the UK
  - jgeada 6y ago
    Most banks in the US either charge a fee, or waive it if you have enough money in your account(s). That too is a fee, as the interest they pay on your money is many basis points lower than the interest they charge for lending your money to someone else. In my opinion, anybody that thinks they have a bank account "for free" doesn't know how to read financial statements. Banks are not charities.

njarboe 6y ago

The reason is because of the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" of 1970 said that Credit Reporting Agencies (CRA) are not liable for any errors if they are not malicious. And the act preempts any State laws that might impose other more restrictive laws on CRAs. From a short publication on the "Fair Credit Reporting Act": "Defamation, privacy, and negligence claims. The FCRA specifically bars defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims that concern the reporting of information from being brought against any CRA, any user of a consumer report, or any furnisher of reported information, except for false information furnished with malice or willfully intended to injure the consumer (15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e); see, for example, Thornton v. Equifax, Inc., 619 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 1980)). For a state-law claim to stand under this provision, a defendant’s misconduct must be truly malicious and not simply careless (see Ross v. FDIC, 625 F.3d 808, 817 (4th Cir. 2010))." See [1] for the whole document: https://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/e42f45d6-a8c6-43fc-a3d7-3fd302b447c6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/1d5beeac-8049-48ec-9832-a45699daedeb/Understanding%20the%20FCRA.pdf https://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/e42f45d6-a8c6-43f...

jedberg 6y ago

There is a great comedy routine about identity theft. It's by Mitchell and Webb. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E Don't keep reading if you don't want a spoiler. . . . . The gist of it is that the customer says "this sounds like a bank robbery, not identity theft. I have my identity, but you don't have the money, so it sounds like they stole your money, not my identity".