Timeline for Are checks safe to use given mobile deposit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2019 at 15:09 | history | edited | sevensevens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 869 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2019 at 16:45 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 20, 2019 at 1:34 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2019 at 16:33 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | Regarding "I'm not sure what the U.S. government could really do to stop them" -- the US government doesn't have to. The US banks simply do not send the money to the foreign country on the instruction of a personal check, which makes it the problem of the foreign bank (who gave out the money and wants it back) and the foreign criminal justice system. There's a reason that foreign transactions use credit cards, wire transfers, or travelers' checks -- because virtually no one accepts out-of-country personal checks. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 16:28 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | Possible duplicate of Can't the account information on my checks be easily used for fraud? | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 16:28 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | It is a duplicate. Mobile deposit hasn't created any new possibilities for criminals to create unauthorized checks. Hasn't even made it easier. Not significantly faster, given that MICR inks and check stock are widely available for self-printing. About all it does is make the process a bit cheaper, which changes nothing at all. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 16:10 | comment | added | dwizum | Thanks, your edit added a lot of useful clarification. I don't know if I can warrant a new answer vs what has already been provided, but I would mention that check processing is easily as tightly regulated as credit cards, and inherently works the same - as long as a consumer doesn't do something stupid, they're generally protected from fraud; the bank(s) takes the hit. Checks also have the "advantage" that it's vastly more common for a bank employee to be manually reviewing or involved in your transaction, vs a credit card, which pretty much no humans are going to be directly monitoring. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 15:59 | comment | added | sevensevens | @dwizum - see long-winded edit | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 15:55 | history | edited | sevensevens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 199 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2019 at 15:47 | history | edited | sevensevens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 199 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2019 at 15:39 | comment | added | dwizum | I'm going to put on my security.stackexchange.com hat for a minute and ask you some clarifying questions. What threat vector are you trying to protect yourself against? From which perspective are you concerned (a customer, or the bank)? What's your definition of safe - do you mean safer than some other method? | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 21:17 | vote | accept | sevensevens | ||
| Jun 18, 2019 at 20:47 | answer | added | Gerold Astor | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 20:37 | comment | added | RonJohn | Banks have internal programs to detect duplicate checks being deposited against the same account. More generally, though, is that the economy works on honesty; there aren't enough thieves to destabilize things, and the thieves that do exist get caught. | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 20:37 | answer | added | quid | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 20:36 | history | edited | sevensevens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 206 characters in body
|
| Jun 18, 2019 at 20:27 | history | asked | sevensevens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |