| General > General Technical Chat |
| Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030 |
| << < (53/59) > >> |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on October 21, 2023, 09:12:54 am --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 21, 2023, 07:25:49 am --- --- Quote from: Monkeh on October 20, 2023, 11:56:27 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 19, 2023, 09:32:08 am ---I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again. --- End quote --- That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught. --- End quote --- Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques :) --- End quote --- Well, it probably would have. --- End quote --- Note the smiley. Hurdles before cheque causes a debit: * victim wouldn't have written the cheque, and sanity checks for large amounts * eyeballs in victim's bank, strange new large debit to a personal account * large amount, certainly enough to trigger "large transfer procedures" * delays for cheques to clear, might have given victim time to raise the alarm * victim's bank couldn't have absolved themselves of responsibility, but they would probably have tried Hurdles wouldn't have been insurmountable, but the victim would have been helped by the last point. --- Quote ---Just because you have a chequing account, doesn't mean all the current methods are null and void. Precautions still need to be taken, regardless of the method of payment. If you want to go down the path of fraud, cheques are even more open to manipulation than just about any other method of payment. If you're meaning that the payment wouldn't have gone through on the vending machine via a cheque, yep, you're right, almost no one accepts them anymore (and last I checked, no vending machine did). Hurrah! Finally a win for an obsolete payment method... security through obscurity. Your reward will be 1 kilogram of black peppercorns. Spend it wisely! --- End quote --- "Fast and thoughtless" has different problems to "slow and thoughtful". Swings and roundabouts. |
| Monkeh:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on October 21, 2023, 07:25:49 am --- --- Quote from: Monkeh on October 20, 2023, 11:56:27 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 19, 2023, 09:32:08 am ---I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again. --- End quote --- That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught. --- End quote --- Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques :) Presuming he didn't have $65k in the account, why did the debits succeed? I'm surprised the bank claimed that unauthorised debits weren't their problem. --- End quote --- He in fact did, and it was authorised to the same extent as any other transaction. And the machine happily displayed the correct price all the way through the process. As far as the bank was concerned, it was an authorised transaction with card present at a terminal which had been used prior. Not their problem. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Monkeh on October 21, 2023, 01:10:45 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 21, 2023, 07:25:49 am --- --- Quote from: Monkeh on October 20, 2023, 11:56:27 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 19, 2023, 09:32:08 am ---I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again. --- End quote --- That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught. --- End quote --- Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques :) Presuming he didn't have $65k in the account, why did the debits succeed? I'm surprised the bank claimed that unauthorised debits weren't their problem. --- End quote --- He in fact did, and it was authorised to the same extent as any other transaction. And the machine happily displayed the correct price all the way through the process. As far as the bank was concerned, it was an authorised transaction with card present at a terminal which had been used prior. Not their problem. --- End quote --- Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions. Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there! |
| Monkeh:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on October 21, 2023, 02:29:41 pm ---Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions. Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there! --- End quote --- What doesn't make sense to me is how a machine can display a transaction for.. whatever it was, it was a flower machine so I'd guess $20-50, receive authorisation, and end up drawing $65k. Leaves me with very, very little trust in the entire chain. Then again, this was in the US, I've come to expect major institutions there to be 20+ years behind the curve. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Monkeh on October 21, 2023, 02:44:15 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on October 21, 2023, 02:29:41 pm ---Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions. Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there! --- End quote --- What doesn't make sense to me is how a machine can display a transaction for.. whatever it was, it was a flower machine so I'd guess $20-50, receive authorisation, and end up drawing $65k. Leaves me with very, very little trust in the entire chain. Then again, this was in the US, I've come to expect major institutions there to be 20+ years behind the curve. --- End quote --- So it appears. All chains and processes fail sometimes. The key point is how easy it is to repudiate transactions, which largely depends on the Ts&Cs pushing responsibility onto other parties[1]. With CSRs being replaced by chatbots or guided by LLMs, such repudiation is unlikely to get easier. [1] classically passwords and PINs, which push the responsibility onto the end user: "the correct passworf/PIN was used therefore you must have use it or been negligent". |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |