4 ms·

It's all very well that a company can disable your account without any recourse but I would be interested in someone with deep enough pockets to take legal acti

It's all very well that a company can disable your account without any recourse but I would be interested in someone with deep enough pockets to take legal action against an organisation that actually posseses your property. If a bank closed my account and wouldn't give me my money back and their "decision was final", I would be rightly outraged. I guess the problem is just the massive disparity between some Joe Schmo who cannot afford legal action and these multi-billion corporates who can actually afford to lose.

m12k 5y ago
Legislation like the GDPR is a step in the right direction, by defining and enforcing your ownership over your own data. It seems like we need another similar legislation to define our rights when we license IP - e.g. so I can't just lose my Steam or Oculus game library.
Joker_vD 5y ago
Oh, but those are not your money, strictly speaking: when you make a deposit, you surrender the legal title to the cash, and it becomes an asset of the bank. In turn, you get the right to cash withdrawal, as specified in the terms and conditions. But money itself, those now belong to the bank and the bank can do (and actually does) with them whatever it pleases, without needing your knowledge, or consent, or approval, or whatever.
- jlokier 5y ago
  > Oh, but those are not your money, strictly speaking: when you make a deposit, you surrender the legal title to the cash You don't own the $10 cash bill in your pocket either. It's just a promissory note from the central bank. When you deposit that $10 cash, you're not surrendering legal title, you're transferring liability. Switching from one third party to another. Debating what that really means is where the discussion gets interesting. But rather philosophical. Pragmatically, you own money in a bank account the same way as you own it in cash. Have fun with the turtles all the way down!
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Not at all wrong. What protects my (in the US) bank money isn't that I own the $10 the bank is holding for me; it's that the bank is FDIC-insured and if it's ever not able to satisfy our contract and give me my money back, the US government will step in and hand me my $10. ... and that $10 has value because the US government says it does, and people believe it (including international banks and other naton-states, which cram physical dollars into secure vaults as back-stops against the implosion of their domestic currencies).
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > But money itself, those now belong to the bank and the bank can do (and actually does) with them whatever it pleases, without needing your knowledge, or consent, or approval, or whatever. Is this actually the situation in developed countries?
  - Joker_vD 5y ago
    Depends on the country, of course. In Commonwealth (which includes the UK, Canada, Australia etc.) Foley v Hill (1848) still holds, which contains this absolutely lovely passage: Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into a banker’s is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. That has been the subject of discussion in various cases, and that has been established to be the relative situation of banker and customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a debtor. Notice how completely different it is from lease of tangible property.
    - shuntress 5y ago
      >Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; >but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. These are the two important parts. The banker must pay back an amount equal to that which was deposited but is not required to return the literal cash. If you hand a banker a physical gold coin to deposit you have no reasonable expectation of receiving that exact individual gold coin upon withdrawal. But, you still get back a gold coin.
- shuntress 5y ago
  That money is an asset under the control of the bank, sure. But you are willfully ignoring a key aspect of the terms and conditions: That when you ask to withdraw your deposit, the bank provides that money. If you want to keep pulling on that thread, you will find it connect almost directly to the root problem of large-scale human organization: Some people think that when you put your money in a bank it is incumbent on you (it is your personal responsibility, they may say) to ensure that that bank will not close and run away with your money and if they do it's your own fault and you got what you deserved. Other people think that when you put your money in a bank, you should be able to trust a broad social contract that prevents your money from being stolen.

m12k 5y ago

Legislation like the GDPR is a step in the right direction, by defining and enforcing your ownership over your own data. It seems like we need another similar legislation to define our rights when we license IP - e.g. so I can't just lose my Steam or Oculus game library.

Joker_vD 5y ago

Oh, but those are not your money, strictly speaking: when you make a deposit, you surrender the legal title to the cash, and it becomes an asset of the bank. In turn, you get the right to cash withdrawal, as specified in the terms and conditions. But money itself, those now belong to the bank and the bank can do (and actually does) with them whatever it pleases, without needing your knowledge, or consent, or approval, or whatever.

jlokier 5y ago
> Oh, but those are not your money, strictly speaking: when you make a deposit, you surrender the legal title to the cash You don't own the $10 cash bill in your pocket either. It's just a promissory note from the central bank. When you deposit that $10 cash, you're not surrendering legal title, you're transferring liability. Switching from one third party to another. Debating what that really means is where the discussion gets interesting. But rather philosophical. Pragmatically, you own money in a bank account the same way as you own it in cash. Have fun with the turtles all the way down!
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Not at all wrong. What protects my (in the US) bank money isn't that I own the $10 the bank is holding for me; it's that the bank is FDIC-insured and if it's ever not able to satisfy our contract and give me my money back, the US government will step in and hand me my $10. ... and that $10 has value because the US government says it does, and people believe it (including international banks and other naton-states, which cram physical dollars into secure vaults as back-stops against the implosion of their domestic currencies).
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> But money itself, those now belong to the bank and the bank can do (and actually does) with them whatever it pleases, without needing your knowledge, or consent, or approval, or whatever. Is this actually the situation in developed countries?
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  Depends on the country, of course. In Commonwealth (which includes the UK, Canada, Australia etc.) Foley v Hill (1848) still holds, which contains this absolutely lovely passage: Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into a banker’s is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. That has been the subject of discussion in various cases, and that has been established to be the relative situation of banker and customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a debtor. Notice how completely different it is from lease of tangible property.
  - shuntress 5y ago
    >Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; >but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. These are the two important parts. The banker must pay back an amount equal to that which was deposited but is not required to return the literal cash. If you hand a banker a physical gold coin to deposit you have no reasonable expectation of receiving that exact individual gold coin upon withdrawal. But, you still get back a gold coin.
shuntress 5y ago
That money is an asset under the control of the bank, sure. But you are willfully ignoring a key aspect of the terms and conditions: That when you ask to withdraw your deposit, the bank provides that money. If you want to keep pulling on that thread, you will find it connect almost directly to the root problem of large-scale human organization: Some people think that when you put your money in a bank it is incumbent on you (it is your personal responsibility, they may say) to ensure that that bank will not close and run away with your money and if they do it's your own fault and you got what you deserved. Other people think that when you put your money in a bank, you should be able to trust a broad social contract that prevents your money from being stolen.