4 ms·

I was chatting with an elderly man in front of me in line at the post office years ago. He was complaining that he had already paid so many fees but was really

by jjeaff 4y ago

I was chatting with an elderly man in front of me in line at the post office years ago. He was complaining that he had already paid so many fees but was really close to collecting his winnings from the Australian lottery (we were in the US). And according to him, he never even entered the lottery. I told him that this was a common scam and that they were simply stealing his money and to not send them anymore. He said, no, he knew it was real because they gave him the phone number for a bank and he called and the man on the other end confirmed it was real. I implored him not to send any more money, but he continued to take out a postal money order for a few hundred dollars. I told the cashier that he was being scammed after he left and they just said "ya, but what can you do?" You can refuse to process the payment!

liaukovv 4y ago
Why do you consider yourself or the cashier to be in position to deny the man his lawful right to be stupid?
- trhway 4y ago
  Well, if one sees a crime being committed against an elderly person, it is kind of an recognized social duty to intercede, though really there seems to be no good practical way of doing so in the case like this. And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Unfortunately it is a very heavy legal process of a sledgehammer when i think in many cases it should be a surgeon knife.
  - liaukovv 4y ago
    I personally consider conservatorship immoral. "We know better so you are better off being my slave"
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      well its meant for folks that literwlly no longwr function, like late stage Alzheimer and what not
  - roenxi 4y ago
    There is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money. Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse. All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.
    - danaris 4y ago
      You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?
      - phil21 4y ago
        This is an incredibly disengenious take. Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop. What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience. This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse. Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that. Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.
        danaris 4y ago
        It sounds to me like what you're criticizing is one particular method of addressing the problem, rather than the general idea that we need to address the problem. It would absolutely be reasonable to continue fighting fraud by recognizing that these things can happen, and taking steps to combat them, without tilting it as far as you have seen in favor of banks essentially confiscating customer funds.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    >And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Which are abused nationwide
- piva00 4y ago
  Why do you consider that total freedom of an oblivious individual fucking their finances is a good thing for society? As a society we are actually here to help others with our experiences, if the experience of a cashier with multiple fraudulent transactions can help a soul to not be a sucker, why shouldn't they use that power? Why do you consider "lawful" as the only measure of "good"?
  - liaukovv 4y ago
    Freedom is important
    - piva00 4y ago
      Avoiding financial distress and/or ruin is important as well. How you balance this equation is the hard part that takes effort and deep thinking and the subject to much discussion in many fields of philosophy. Being a maximalist is the road to stupid dogmatic behaviour. The path to radical extremism.
      - liaukovv 4y ago
        Those are not even in the same league
        piva00 4y ago
        Those what? I feel you aren't really interested in engaging on a discussion here, throwing hot takes and platitudes isn't very conducive to have a conversation...
  - kylebenzleee 4y ago
- lordgrenville 4y ago
  "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (J.S. Mill). I think this is a good example of the limitations of this principle. It precludes social cohesion and mutual responsibility.
FireBeyond 4y ago
My father, who is in his 70s, and mentally very sharp, although a little hard of hearing, was trying to organize a wire transfer from Australia to me in the US for around $25K. He had a hell of a time doing it, not even as a matter of international wire logistics, but convincing the bank staff to "allow" him to do so because they were "concerned he was being scammed". On one hand I appreciated their concern, but as he told them, "Do you see my (very very uncommon) family name? See his? It's my son." "Well, have you spoken to your son? Did he ask you to send him money on Facebook?" "No, WE offered to send him a gift towards downpayment of a house." "How do you know this is his bank account details?" "Because I asked him for them and he gave them to me?" He got ... quite frustrated.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Frustrating, but I think a necessary thing considering how common older people are scammed. The name you are wiring to doesn't necessarily mean anything. And it is a very common scam for people to impersonate overseas family members and ask for money. So good on them for doing some due diligence. Especially someone who is hard of hearing can be susceptible to this type of scam because it may be more difficult to recognize a loved one's voice over the phone.

by jjeaff 4y ago

liaukovv 4y ago

Why do you consider yourself or the cashier to be in position to deny the man his lawful right to be stupid?

trhway 4y ago
Well, if one sees a crime being committed against an elderly person, it is kind of an recognized social duty to intercede, though really there seems to be no good practical way of doing so in the case like this. And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Unfortunately it is a very heavy legal process of a sledgehammer when i think in many cases it should be a surgeon knife.
- liaukovv 4y ago
  I personally consider conservatorship immoral. "We know better so you are better off being my slave"
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    well its meant for folks that literwlly no longwr function, like late stage Alzheimer and what not
- roenxi 4y ago
  There is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money. Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse. All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.
  - danaris 4y ago
    You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?
    - phil21 4y ago
      This is an incredibly disengenious take. Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop. What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience. This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse. Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that. Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.
      - danaris 4y ago
        It sounds to me like what you're criticizing is one particular method of addressing the problem, rather than the general idea that we need to address the problem. It would absolutely be reasonable to continue fighting fraud by recognizing that these things can happen, and taking steps to combat them, without tilting it as far as you have seen in favor of banks essentially confiscating customer funds.
- LocalH 4y ago
  >And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Which are abused nationwide
piva00 4y ago
Why do you consider that total freedom of an oblivious individual fucking their finances is a good thing for society? As a society we are actually here to help others with our experiences, if the experience of a cashier with multiple fraudulent transactions can help a soul to not be a sucker, why shouldn't they use that power? Why do you consider "lawful" as the only measure of "good"?
- liaukovv 4y ago
  Freedom is important
  - piva00 4y ago
    Avoiding financial distress and/or ruin is important as well. How you balance this equation is the hard part that takes effort and deep thinking and the subject to much discussion in many fields of philosophy. Being a maximalist is the road to stupid dogmatic behaviour. The path to radical extremism.
    - liaukovv 4y ago
      Those are not even in the same league
      - piva00 4y ago
        Those what? I feel you aren't really interested in engaging on a discussion here, throwing hot takes and platitudes isn't very conducive to have a conversation...
- kylebenzleee 4y ago
lordgrenville 4y ago
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (J.S. Mill). I think this is a good example of the limitations of this principle. It precludes social cohesion and mutual responsibility.

FireBeyond 4y ago

My father, who is in his 70s, and mentally very sharp, although a little hard of hearing, was trying to organize a wire transfer from Australia to me in the US for around $25K. He had a hell of a time doing it, not even as a matter of international wire logistics, but convincing the bank staff to "allow" him to do so because they were "concerned he was being scammed". On one hand I appreciated their concern, but as he told them, "Do you see my (very very uncommon) family name? See his? It's my son." "Well, have you spoken to your son? Did he ask you to send him money on Facebook?" "No, WE offered to send him a gift towards downpayment of a house." "How do you know this is his bank account details?" "Because I asked him for them and he gave them to me?" He got ... quite frustrated.

jjeaff 4y ago
Frustrating, but I think a necessary thing considering how common older people are scammed. The name you are wiring to doesn't necessarily mean anything. And it is a very common scam for people to impersonate overseas family members and ask for money. So good on them for doing some due diligence. Especially someone who is hard of hearing can be susceptible to this type of scam because it may be more difficult to recognize a loved one's voice over the phone.