5 ms·

> banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? You fail to realise same issue is

> banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? You fail to realise same issue is in both cases. Same procedures work in both cases. If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.

maratc 4y ago
> How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? "Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail" > they should be willing to do the same for epayments. Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in practice.
mindslight 4y ago
> If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so. You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.
- adriancr 4y ago
  > The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other then assumptions? If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary. Why so little faith in authorities? > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives. > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...) As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
  - maratc 4y ago
    > Why so little faith in authorities? I have dealt with the authorities on the account of fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help. You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer: > They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment. So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? > more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this. > and easy to set up on your phone A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion? Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.
    - adriancr 4y ago
      > So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment. What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds. If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance. Objective facts/investigation. Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw) > Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank... I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token) You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions. You will get support. Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.

maratc 4y ago

> How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? "Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail" > they should be willing to do the same for epayments. Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in practice.

mindslight 4y ago

> If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so. You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.

adriancr 4y ago
> The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other then assumptions? If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary. Why so little faith in authorities? > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives. > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...) As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
- maratc 4y ago
  > Why so little faith in authorities? I have dealt with the authorities on the account of fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.
- mindslight 4y ago
  I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help. You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer: > They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment. So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? > more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this. > and easy to set up on your phone A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion? Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.
  - adriancr 4y ago
    > So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment. What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds. If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance. Objective facts/investigation. Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw) > Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank... I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token) You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions. You will get support. Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.