>> >>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>>> >>>>> The problem with checks is that all I need is your routing and account
>>>>> number, and guess what? Those are printed on every one of your checks
>>>>> in plain human readable numerals. I can print up new checks on my
>>>>> computer with any ID on them I want, and your account number. I can
>>>>> start passing them around town same as your sneak thief. And guess
>>>>> what? I can easily get a fake ID to match the ID of the person I put
>>>>> on the check. Checks are terribly insecure.
>>>> You also need a signature, at least if you want the money to come from
>>>> my account.
>>>> Now you obviously don't care if a merchant gets screwed since you've
>>>> long since run off with the goods, but for the consumer, it's not as
>>>> bad as the above makes it sound.
>>> Most banks don't even look at the signature, that is unless the check
>>> it presented in person at the issuers bank.
>> And they *don't* do any comparasion with the signature card that is
>> 'on file'. This has been the case for 20 years or more.
> Actually, this is starting to change thanks to computers -- No more
> signature card required, but they do sometimes check the signature
> against an online image of the signature.
> It certainly doesn't happen often, and probably only above a certain
> amount, but they do perform checks of cheques in some cases -- I know
> because I've had a cheque held while they called a bank officer over
> to approve a signature because the signature wasn't close enough for
> the rep to eyeball it and approve it.
They did that only in the case of you going to the issuing bank, through the automatic system it would never have been done.
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.