7 ms·
No one thinks this is actually secure, it's security theater. The thing is, the cost of identity theft of consumers to credit reporting companies is less than
by hsk0823 8y ago
No one thinks this is actually secure, it's security theater.
The thing is, the cost of identity theft of consumers to credit reporting companies is less than the cost to actually adopt secure methods to judge one's credit.
- arcticbull 8y agoYou’re exactly right. It’s the same reason we’re required to sign checks then the bank promptly ignores the signatures. It’s cheaper to handle the fraud than check the signatures, but it makes us feel good to do it anyways.
- ktjfi 8y agoI guess the signatures are there in case someone complains? They can just pull the check and see if the signature is legit. But checking every signature is simply too much work.
- usea 8y agoIt's my understanding (from hearsay) that they use software to look at signatures, and use that data as a fraud signal, among other data.
- css 8y ago> the bank promptly ignores the signatures You're technically supposed to sign and endorse the back of every check you electronically deposit; I have never done this since my bank offered mobile deposit and have never had a check rejected. It honestly just makes me sad.
- floatingatoll 8y agoThey’re upgrading this to require you to write “mobile deposit for XYZ bank” as well, so that you can’t double-deposit without getting caught early on.
- vharuck 8y agoMy bank upgraded their branch ATMs to accept multiple checks at the same time for deposits. What surprised me was the displayed instructions said one did not need to sign the backs.
- spookthesunset 8y agoI mean, whats the point of signing the back of a check? Most businesses don't sign the backs of their checks. They use a stamp that has their business name printed in some ordinary font. At that point you might as well let the mobile app superimpose its own signature or have the ATM apply its own stamp.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoI wish - a few years ago I was trying to pay for rent with a cheque and it bounced. I ended up sending another cheque, having that one get rejected, go into the bank and give them a new signature sample, and then have the next cheque be rejected as well due to the signature. Apparently my bank checks cheques.
- pocketstar 8y agoCanada? Or Common Wealth? Judging from how you spell “cheque”. Signatures still mean something in some countires, just not the US.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoCanada. I've never heard of anyone but myself experiencing this issue though.
- davchana 8y agoYes, Indian Banks too check Signatures on anything submitted to them. I once had to deposit cash in my own account but in different city in India. It was free if I deposited it, but fees for anybody third party. Cashier told me my signature doesn’t match with whats on file and thus either I need to re-sign or need to pay fees. Here in US I have seen policies in Stores saying we accept check, but we will onetime use the account & routing number on check to pull the amount. I am so confused if by merely giving someone a cheque they are able to “pull” money from just two numbers, and can do it for any amount & any number of times.
- athenot 8y ago> I am so confused if by merely giving someone a cheque they are able to “pull” money from just two numbers, and can do it for any amount & any number of times. That is exactly how checks work. It's optimized for happy-path, with a big mess of a process to handle fraud. The cash equivalent would be to carry a bucket with all your money and when you pay, you present your bucket so that the shop can pull out the amount you and them agreed on.
- suresk 8y agoI know some banks actually do check them. Last year, my wife paid a contractor with a check from Ally, and the check bounced because the signatures were not close enough.
- orky56 8y agoFor one payroll, I completely forgot to sign a set of checks for 40 employees. Not one employee came back and said their check did not clear. Scary world we live in.