Deposit Checks By iPhone

kaychoro writes to mention that at least one privately held bank is planning on removing a little bit more legwork for the consumer by allowing the electronic submission of paper checks via a new iPhone app. The app would allow users to take a picture of the front and back of the check and submit that to the depository. "Customers will not have to mail the check to the bank later; the deposit will be handled entirely electronically, and the bank suggests voiding the check and filing or discarding it. But to reduce the potential for fraud, only customers who are eligible for credit and have some type of insurance through USAA will be permitted to use the deposit feature. Mr. Peacock said that about 60 percent of the bank's customers qualify."

Comments

Checks

[arth1]

Some countries still use personal cheques? How quaint!

Re:Checks

[SigILL]

Indeed, I've been able to do this for about 10 years already. I don't think I even have cheques anymore. Heck, I don't even think my *bank* has paper cheques anymore.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, when AdSense was brand spanking new, I cashed my first cheque.
The cheque was for $210 or so, of which my bank kept a $50 processing fee.

It also took them roughly five minutes to figure out how to handle a cheque.

Luckily, subsequent cheques were a few thousand dollars each, so the $50 fee didn't hurt too much.
I'd be amazed if there's a bank office here that handles more than one cheque per day.

Location: obviously somewhere in Europe.

Re:Checks

[Jeng]

Here I was thinking that ONLY old people wrote checks.

I'm amazed that only 60% of the check writing public are members of AARP.

Re:Checks

[644bd346996]

I'm pretty sure that the IRS and the various state treasuries still issue more checks each year than old people.

Re:Checks

[Markemp]

Renters generally still pay their rent with checks. That and the occasional random bill from a service company that you get through the mail. Checks still have their place, although I generally pay everything online these days.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's USAA not AARP. USAA = United States Auto Association.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Gah, my landlord takes cash or cheques *only*. It's the only reason I ever got a chequebook. When a payment is late I try to hint that this wouldn't have happened if they'd just let me pay online.

Re:Checks

[DAldredge]

Some people like having a physical record that they paid something

Re:Checks

[operagost]

In your country, do contractors and repair people carry plastic card terminals around with them?

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like a bank statement?

Re:Checks

[spoilsportmotors]

Probably, considering that I couldn't get my state treasury to issue a single old person. Stupid economy.

Re:Checks

[ShieldW0lf]

If you don't have 12 paper cheques around here, you can't get a lease. Need them to set up direct deposit of your pay, need them to set up direct deposit for your health insurance, need them for all sorts of things.

Re:Checks

[tepples]

In your country, do contractors and repair people carry plastic card terminals around with them?

No, but they take PayPal payments on their web sites.

Re:Checks

[vlm]

A few years ago, when AdSense was brand spanking new, I cashed my first cheque.
The cheque was for $210 or so, of which my bank kept a $50 processing fee.

Luckily, subsequent cheques were a few thousand dollars each

I had no idea you could get that kind of loot from Adsense, and my first guess was you were referring to Zimbabwe dollars, where you get a trillion to one us $.

Location: obviously somewhere in Europe.

Re:Checks

[arth1]

In your country, do contractors and repair people carry plastic card terminals around with them?

No, they hand you a bill with a giro attached to it. You then either add your account number to the debit side of the giro, sign it and take it (or mail it) to your bank, or pay electronically to the account number listed on the credit side of the giro.

In either case, there's no artificial "hold" time (which is a lame excuse for excessive float) -- the recipient gets the money immediately, as the transfer is initiated from the payer, not the payee.

I believe the Scandinavian countries abolished cheques back in the early 90s (along with pagers and cassette tapes), and most of Europe is now cheque free.

Re:Checks

[teg]

In your country, do contractors and repair people carry plastic card terminals around with them?

No, you get the bill and pay with giro. These are almost exclusively handled electronically these days - although earlier mailing them in was common. Or delivering them to the bank. Cheques haven't been used here in Norway since the early eighties. Some delivery services (packages, pizza, ...) have portable terminals, though.

Re:Checks

[sbeckstead]

The mailing budget must be huge on those old people it is issuing. Cheaper to produce them the old fashioned way I bet.

Re:Checks

[vlm]

That and the occasional random bill from a service company that you get through the mail.

Skilled tradesmen generally like to get a check in their hands immediately after their work is complete.

Often, a cash discount is available, depending on their level of fear of the IRS (the old fashioned scam, I usually charge $100 but if you let me write up a receipt for $50, I'll take $75 cash, and we'll both be happy and call it even, mm kay?)

Re:Checks

[MBGMorden]

Everyone you do business with isn't likely to have a credit card machine handy. When I was taking flying lessons for example the instructor (just a local CFI who taught in his spare time) nor the aircraft owner I rented from (an 80+ year old man who rented out his plane for instruction to get a bit of extra income) could take a credit/debit card, but they took cash or checks just fine. Since toting around the check book still beat cash, checks it was.

Having the checkbook also has come in handy at least twice when I made it to the checkout of a merchant only to find out that their credit card reader was down (once for an unknown reason - another time because they used satellite internet to run the transactions through and they couldn't get a signal in the storm that was raging outside). Once again, checks to the rescue.

Don't get me wrong, I never use them when I don't have to, but they certainly can still come in handy. Generally I don't even keep it in my wallet as it takes up too much space, but keeping a checkbook in the glove-box of the car has proven convenient enough.

Re:Checks

[Mascot]

In the US, yes, but not so here. I can't remember as much as seeing one for at least 15 years.

So, seen from the eyes of a nation where it has been all but a memory for nearly two decades, quaint is indeed a fitting term.

Re:Checks

[LanMan04]

Some countries still use personal cheques? How quaint!

Some people still spell check as "cheque"? How quaint!

Re:Checks

[ljw1004]

Can't you? Doesn't your bank have an online "bill-pay" system? Mine does. They normally do payment by having the bank write a check and posting it to the recipient.

But if you want to send money to a friend's bank account, then it first gets sent as a check from your bank to your friend's bank, and on subsequent payments they do it electronically if they can.

Re:Checks

[SigILL]

In your country, do contractors and repair people carry plastic card terminals around with them?

Actually, some do. It's seen as preferrable to lugging around large amounts of cash.

Those terminals simply use the ubiquitous GSM network, and you pay the same way as you'd be paying at a local merchant: swipe your card, enter your PIN and press OK.

Re:Checks

[SBrach]

Ohhhhhhh, so instead of checks you have pre-printed pieces of paper that you fill out and take to your bank. How futuristic.

Re:Checks

[PCM2]

Funnily enough, a few years ago I had something published in an Australian magazine. They offered to pay me by wiring the currency direct to my account. "Amazing," I thought. "Why don't more U.S. businesses operate this way?" They were paying me something in the neighborhood of $200 USD, and they said they would do the deposit in USD for me, so I wouldn't get screwed by any kind of exchange-rate shenanigans. But lo and behold, once the "currency" reached the U.S. "border," Citibank (which isn't even my bank) politely stepped in to take care of the tricky details of this "international transaction" for me -- and in the process, automatically deducted a $50 USD fee before the funds hit my account.

Obviously, doing financial transactions in bits and bytes isn't as simple as you'd think it is.

Re:Checks

[Sorthum]

Incorrect. United Services Automobile Association; you pooched the second word.

Re:Checks

[Lumpy]

Actually some companies a paper check (cheque) is actually CHEAPER than paying via Credit card or debit card.

DTE energy here in Michigan charges you a FEE to pay electronically. I send the scumbags a paper check. They cant charge me more legally to pay that way, and it costs them more than accepting my electronic payment.

it's that a lot of major companies are ran by idiots and morons that are either afraid of change or ragingly greedy and like to rape their customers at any turn.

i'm betting on the latter.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, last time my vehicle broke down I paid the mechanic by credit card at the roadside.

If I'd suggested writing a check, he'd have looked at me like I'd tried to pay him three cows and a goat.

Re:Checks

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Well, you'll be joining the few old ladies that still pay at the bank using those pieces of paper. Go Team Walking-Chair, Go SBranch! You can make it!

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS as simple as you'd think it is, its just that the banks don't make money on the transfer of bits.

Re:Checks

[oji-sama]

umm. you do the payment on the futuristic internet, using pre-printed codes / passwords / something. I visit the (brick and mortar) bank about once a year (if that...)

Re:Checks

[SchizoStatic]

I would seriously change banks then. If your bank is confused by a simple check then they should not be a bank.

Re:Checks

[Kadin2048]

The giro system is still superior to cheques / drafts -- it's a "push" system instead of a "pull", and for that reason a lot less prone to fraud. Typical check-fraud strategies don't work with giro, because the transfer is initiated from the payor's side, not the payee's.

It's unfortunate that the US never transitioned over to the giro system, but my understanding is that it's something that occurred in Europe post-war, when they had an opportunity to change things around that the US never got. Cheques and drafts are an older concept.

Just because both systems involve paper doesn't mean they're in any way equal. Nor does it mean that an electronic system would be, just for being electronic, superior to one or both: it's quite easy, actually, to make an electronic system that's less secure and more prone to fraud than a paper-based one. I'd much rather see a paper-based giro system in the US than an electronic version of the "pull"-based check, where anyone can suck money out of your account using nothing but the ABA routing and account numbers.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think pretty much everyone used the Internet for the past 10 years for this.

Re:Checks

[xaxa]

Can't you? Doesn't your bank have an online "bill-pay" system? Mine does. They normally do payment by having the bank write a check and posting it to the recipient.

How quaint ;-)

Since the GP wrote "cheque" and posted at 17:16 UK time, he's probably British (or at least European). An electronic transfer between UK bank accounts is either "instant" (an hour, max) or three days (if the bank doesn't have the new, quicker system). In either case, it's completely electronic.

I just paid my rent online via a bank transfer. The recipient will know about it when either a) he looks at the online banking for his account, or b) he receives the bank statement.

But if you want to send money to a friend's bank account, then it first gets sent as a check from your bank to your friend's bank, and on subsequent payments they do it electronically if they can.

I don't see what the bank sending a cheque to the other bank achieves. A processing delay?

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

So you felt the need to put cheque in parenthesis? Could the Brits not understand that check and cheque are the same?

Fucking douche-bag.

Re:Checks

[sin1man]

That is ridiculous. All you need are the routing and account numbers to set up any of those features. The only reason they ask for a check is because most people don't know how to read the numbers off a check and they want to do the reading for you lest you screw it up. Most banks on their websites will provide you with the routing numbers and account numbers because people don't have checks anymore to give to payroll or paypal or any other transfer or wire service. My bank (schwab.com) provides nice little printouts to give to your payroll/hr people so you don't need to bother with checks. Of course they give free checks too but who wants to risk having them lying around.

Re:Checks

[Darinbob]

Couple problems here for me. First, I am paranoid enough that I don't want any internet enabled extraction of money from my bank account. I do have auto-bill pay for some regular bills, I'm not that crazy.

Second, my friends do not let me "bill pay", they want cash or check. Basically anyone that won't take a credit card wants cash or check. Checks work well for charities since they don't have to pay the 2% transaction fee to the credit card companies. Speaking of which, I hear there are several stores now encouraging customers to use cash or check to avoid the 2% fee.

Paying by check is no more obsolete than is using a mobile phone to make phone calls.

Re:Checks

[rnws]

Nope but I can pay them via my cellphone http://www.pago.co.nz/, or the over the web (or via the web, from my cellphone). Usually transfers to another bank happen with 24 hours, to an account within the same bank, sometimes within 12. That's back home, but here in the UK (where I reside), I can pay anybody in the UK or EU via their SWIFT code or IBAN. I can transfer funds to accounts overseas to unrelated banks within 24 hours via Internet banking. I got my first debit card & PIN 22 years ago and haven't looked back. Don't even have a chequebook here in the UK, and the last one I wrote back home must have been like 10 years ago.

Re:Checks

[xaxa]

In the UK for paying larger organisations regularly (possibly a varying amount) we use "Direct Debit". You put your bank account number on the form, post it to the company. The company takes the agreed amount of money on the agreed date. If there are any problems you can ask the bank to reverse it (and the company will e.g. send a paper bill). You can stop the payments at any time.
It's the normal system for paying a phone bill, electricity, TV, membership fees, charity donations, etc.

For regular payments that are the same, and especially to individuals or small companies, a "standing order" is an instruction to a bank to make a payment of a certain amount every month. Many land agents will ask for this to be set up to pay rent.

We still have cheques, although I've only written one so far this year. I reckon my chequebook will last longer than cheques are used in this country.

Re:Checks

[Darinbob]

Giros are very similar to checks/cheques, except that they go the opposite way; you take the giro to your bank in order to pay someone, rather than them taking a check to their bank to get paid.

A snag here though is the person who wants the check in their hands now so they can get paid now (or as soon as they can get to a teller). With a giro the person doing that work has to trust that you will get to your bank promptly.

In either case though, your point makes sense. They're pieces of paper printed by the bank used to exchange money as a convenient way of avoiding the use of pieces of paper printed by the treasury/mint.

Re:Checks

[JacobSteelsmith]

The only other major option, besides cash, is credit card processing which costs businesses money. I run a small hosting business for local clients and prefer a check versus paying a fee to the credit card company just to get a payment, although I offer both. I would be very disappointed if checks disappeared.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot more people do than those who dont... Hell while you're at it, just rename the Czech Republic while you're at it will ya? Webster will burn in Hell for what he did to English.

Re:Checks

[plague3106]

No, but they carry a machine into which they insert my card and then carbon paper, and run an impression.

You know credit cards came out long before card readers, right?

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we (in the English-speaking Commonwealth) do. We (Chavs and the Labour Party aside) are not thick. It still fucking rankles that the god damn Yanks can't spell it right anyway. I don't know, what with the mickey-mouse spelling habits and always showing up late for a good war...

Re:Checks

[michaelhood]

I don't see what the bank sending a cheque to the other bank achieves. A processing delay?

Most companies that issue bills (utilities, etc.) accept electronic payments. But some smaller companies (landlords) don't. So for the ones who don't accept them- your bill pay service, as a courtesy, will print an actual check and mail it to the recipient.

Re:Checks

[xaxa]

Couple problems here for me. First, I am paranoid enough that I don't want any internet enabled extraction of money from my bank account

To log in to my online banking, I need my account number, two digits from my PIN (not the one used for the debit card), and four digits from my password. That lets me check my balance, and pay bills I've paid before.

To transfer money to a company/individual I haven't given money to before I also need my debit card and a Chip and PIN reader. I put my debit card in the reader, put in my debit card PIN, put in a number shown on the website, and get a number displayed on the reader. I put that number in the box on the bank website. I don't know what kind of encryption is used on European debit cards.

Second, my friends do not let me "bill pay", they want cash or check.

My friends don't want to carry around large amounts of cash, risk losing a cheque, or have to take the cheque to the bank. If there's a computer nearby (and a chip+PIN reader) we'll transfer the money then, otherwise one of us will email the other the account number.

Basically anyone that won't take a credit card wants cash or check. Checks work well for charities since they don't have to pay the 2% transaction fee to the credit card companies. Speaking of which, I hear there are several stores now encouraging customers to use cash or check to avoid the 2% fee.

You obviously have different (arbitrary) fees imposed by the banks. Organisations (including charities) here don't like cheques, they have to pay to cash them, and pay someone to open the letters. They don't like cash either, they need security staff, there's a risk of theft (from employees too) etc.

Re:Checks

[Teufelsmuhle]

Indeed they are. There is a gas station near my house which is generally 5-10 cents cheaper per gallon than the local competition. The only catch is that you pay more if you want to pay with a credit card.

Re:Checks

[Inda]

Chip and pin readers are great. That extra piece of security that never leaves the house. Every foreseen problem has been designed out. Excellent.

Only it looks like a calculator but has no calculator functions. On mine there's even a square root sign, but that is actually a tick symbol. I'm doing some online banking and trying to add something up, and, and...

Solar panel would be nice too. heh.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

The only other major option, besides cash, is credit card processing which costs businesses money

Of course not, debit and giro are the safe ways to pay.

Re:Checks

[arth1]

Most just pay them electronically. No need to go to the bank or even have a printed giro, all you really need is the recipient's bank account number[1] and a line of text to send to the recipient (so he knows what it's payment for).

[1]: With the system being push instead of pull, there's no worrying about giving away one's account number, unless you worry about people giving you money.

Re:Checks

[JacobSteelsmith]

Debit processing costs money as well. Giro, not available in the US, is really just the reverse of the payee presenting the check. It's not feasible for, say, pizza delivery. But in my business, it would work.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

We have five major banks over here, plus a handful small ones.
Our *nationwide* population is roughly that of New York City.

*Nobody* here uses cheques.
If I want to pay someone for their goods or services, I give them cash, pay with my debit or credit card, or in a few rare cases (amount > $2500, most likely), a post office exchange note.

Re:Checks

[mattack2]

Is the fee more expensive than a stamp? (I'll even ignore the "cost of your time" argument.)

I don't use debit cards because there's an explicit fee (at least at gas stations).

The law says that there can't be a credit card "fee", but unfortunately there can be a "cash discount", which is obviously essentially the same thing. (Though, counting the credit card cash back programs, I have for years been able to get gas via credit card as cheap as the even-lower-priced cash-only places the vast vast vast majority of the time.)

To give DTE a bit of credit (pun intended), there's not just a flat fee, there is a percentage fee for credit cards, so it could cost them a significant amount of money. That's why for example paying one's taxes with credit card adds a BIG fee (not worth it).

Re:Checks

[arth1]

Both are options where you, the recipient, initiate the actual transfer from the payer, either by presenting your bank a cheque, or by presenting the credit card processing company with the card details and sum.

What you want is a system where the payer initiates the transfer, like giro or electronic fund transfers. Then there's no waiting for the transaction to be authorized by the payer's bank (because it already is authorized by the nature of being submitted). The net result is that you get your money quicker and don't have to worry about bounced or stopped checks, withdrawn credit, or credit card reversals.

The losers are the banks, who no longer have an excuse for debiting the payer 3-5 days before crediting the payee, which in effect is a free loan.

And merchants can no longer hide behind "we haven't charged you yet, so stop complaining about it taking weeks before we ship". Because they receive the money on day 1, the onus is on them to deliver.

Re:Checks

[slew]

Certainly you (as an individual) might need to write paper cheque to perform certain financial needs, most folks don't need to deposit paper cheques in the normal course of business (except perhaps the occasional rebate check, large retail refunds, or birthday check from the rich uncle).

It might be entertaining to scan a check into your iphone for the bank, but I'm guessing that banks aren't really expecting very many check deposits this way. In the united states, the UETA (uniform electronic transactions act) passed in 1999 changed the rules so that banks don't need to keep paper copies of cancelled checks anymore to assure they would be legally binding. With the UETA, there's actually isn't really a need for the paper instruments.

For those insomniac tv-watchers out there, you may have noticed that you can buy things from infomercials over the phone w/o a credit card by just telling them your checking account number over the phone. These big companies don't need the paper. With the help of a bank and merchant agreement, you won't either (it's just currently uneconomical for an individual to have a merchant agreement).

This always begs the observation, clearing houses like PayPal are probably the future (Paypal is almost like a clearinghouse for payments not unlike a check clearing house).

Re:Checks

[ImYourVirus]

I am paranoid enough that I don't want any internet enabled extraction of money from my bank account

I'm pretty sure if you have a bank account that anyone can get at your money, given enough details. So how does your debit card work then? If you use one that is. Also what about electronic transfer when you use a check? A lot of business do that to save time and check that you actually have the funds you say you do. Welcome to the 21st century...

now, 'get off my lawn you damn kids!!'

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

USD.

It's not terribly difficult when you run a technical discussion forum and certification centers pay $105 per unqualified lead.. :)

Re:Checks

[master5o1]

I had no idea you could get that kind of loot from Adsense, and my first guess was you were referring to Zimbabwe dollars, where you get a trillion to one us $.

Depends on how many fraudulent clicks you make.

Re:Checks

[JacobSteelsmith]

What you want is a system where the payer initiates the transfer, like giro or electronic fund transfers. Then there's no waiting for the transaction to be authorized by the payer's bank (because it already is authorized by the nature of being submitted). The net result is that you get your money quicker and don't have to worry about bounced or stopped checks, withdrawn credit, or credit card reversals.

What I want, as a business owner, is a free way to accept payment that isn't cash. That is a check. I always have to "worry" about the authenticity of payment, even cash. Checks are still very useful in a variety of situations.

The losers are the banks, who no longer have an excuse for debiting the payer 3-5 days before crediting the payee, which in effect is a free loan.

And merchants can no longer hide behind "we haven't charged you yet, so stop complaining about it taking weeks before we ship". Because they receive the money on day 1, the onus is on them to deliver.

If I take a check a customer has given me to the bank, the bank, depending on the amount, usually credits me the money, then collects the money, using the check, from the drawing bank. There is no free loan there. Even if they hold the bank until funds are collected...that's just it..funds aren't collected, so again, no free loan.

Re:Checks

[FailedTheTuringTest]

I suspect the real problem for the OP was not that it was a check; the problem was probably that it was an *international* check, a check from a USA bank being deposited in a European country. I've had similar issues clearing international checks. The fact of it being an international transaction introduces extra layers of complexity, and it probably had to go through one or two intermediate clearing banks in addition to Google's and the OP's. International checks are a hassle; wire transfer is easier.

Re:Checks

[JacobSteelsmith]

And when I say accept payment, I mean at time of service..not when the client feels like paying me and issues an ETF or whatever.

Re:Checks

[Darinbob]

I don't use debit cards; credit cards offer more protection for me if they get stolen or cloned compared to a debit card, and it's easier to dispute an invalid payment on a credit card (which does happen). I'm still unhappy that my credit card can be accepted without my signing anything.

The only electronic funds transfers I do were arranged in writing with institutions I trust (ie, I signed something on paper). If there is a problem I'd much rather the liability fall on the bank so that it is their loss and liability, rather than my finding out I had a keylogger on my computer that siphoned off some money.

The most important rule about security is that security is incompatible with convenience.

But then again, some people probably think I'm a Luddite even though I'm an engineer. I actually watch television on a television set, my mobile phone is only used for voice calls, and I don't let my browser remember my passwords for me.

Re:Checks

[TheRaven64]

My US publisher pays me in cheques in Pounds Sterling because they get better exchange rates than me and international bank transfers are too complicated for them (and so is paying me through their UK office, apparently). I don't even have to take them to my bank, I can walk a hundred yards along the road to the local post office and pay them in there (they ship them for free to the bank's processing centre).

I've only ever written three cheques in my life though; even paying housemates for electricity bills as a student was easier via EFT. I also have a US account and it amazes me how much Americans are willing to put up with being charged for basic services like using an ATM or transferring money.

Re:Checks

[arth1]

Why is it not feasible for pizza delivery? I have paid for pizza many a time by both debit and direct transfer. When moving to the US a decade ago, I was astonished that I could do neither. Nor pay for small purchases by SMS for that matter.

Re:Checks

[djradon]

zing! take that, funny guy.

Re:Checks

[SchizoStatic]

A post office exchange note is a check. It is a "Money Order" basically a certified check, but a check none the less.

Re:Checks

[idiotnot]

My property management company is the same way -- no direct way to do EFT.

Doesn't your bank have an online "bill-pay" system? Mine does. They normally do payment by having the bank write a check and posting it to the recipient.

Yes, it's actually the bank mentioned in TFA here (and, yes, I'll probably download this app, since I can't use their scanner software, because my scanner doesn't work with anything other than XP, and I'm too cheap to buy another one) does have such a service. I'd used for about a year without a problem until June.

That's when my bank-produced paper check got sent to the wrong PO box (thanks, USPS!!1!), and another company deposited it. It cleared both banks, even though it was the wrong party who deposited it. Am not a satisfied customer at this point to say the least, especially since it took two weeks to get my money back. Luckily, I was still able to pay my rent on time.

And I could probably use the exercise walking the four blocks to deposit a hand-written check in their office mail slot.

Re:Checks

[treeves]

It would have made the movie "Catch Me If You Can" much less entertaining and interesting...

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Cheques are still useful for:

* People who haven't set up online banking.

* People who have, but want to give money to someone and an Internet connection isn't nearby. Not to mention that these days, online banking systems require physical security devices, that most people won't carry around with them.

* People who have online banking, are at home, and the website is down (or their security device has ran out of battery). Indeed, I once had a problem when they introduced these security devices - there was no warning, all of a sudden I was locked out, until they sent me the device through the post. All the while they pull tricks like this, there is no way that Internet banking can be a reliable replacement, so cheques will always have to stay as a backup.

Re:Checks

[arth1]

More than fifteen years ago, I could pick up the phone, call the bank, plug in my account number, pin, one-time security code, recipient's account number and amount, and it would get transferred immediately. No internet required -- just a touch-tone phone.

Here in the US, I can still not do that.

I remember a friend called me once, while on vacation. He ran out of money, so he asked me if I could lend him some. Five minutes later, he had the money, less approximately 10c for the transfer.

Here in the US, something like that would be impossible. An 'express' money transfer consts a small fortune in "telex fees" and other fake fees, and STILL takes at least a day.

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

What would REALLY be a laugh would be if Apple deletes this app from the App Store. If they do that the way they normally do, it will be without explanation and without appeal. I'd like to see how it turns out if they try that against someone with clout like a bank.

Re:Funny

[Amouth]

USAA is a hell of alot larger than just a bank..

This concept isn't new - I'm a USAA member.. (USAA member ship is restricted to Armed Forces and their Dependants (used to be Only Officers int he Armed Forces)) From the start several years ago (8-9) when they opened the Banking part of USAA they allowed Check deposit via a Scanner or via Fax.

the idea of using an IPhone app is no big deal as it's a decent res camera.. and they already have the check image processing software in place (to handle the fax and scans)..

I've never used them for banking.. BUT for insurance.. they are by far the best i've ever seen

Re:Funny

[locnar42]

Normally I wouldn't say that a bank has a lot of clout, but considering that USAA happens to be "the" bank of the United States military...

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

USAA is a hell of alot larger than just a bank..

This concept isn't new - I'm a USAA member.. (USAA member ship is restricted to Armed Forces and their Dependants (used to be Only Officers int he Armed Forces)) From the start several years ago (8-9) when they opened the Banking part of USAA they allowed Check deposit via a Scanner or via Fax.

the idea of using an IPhone app is no big deal as it's a decent res camera.. and they already have the check image processing software in place (to handle the fax and scans)..

I've never used them for banking.. BUT for insurance.. they are by far the best i've ever seen

actually, anyone can have an account with USAA, but some of the features (like electronic check deposit) are available to service members only.

Re:Funny

[sbeckstead]

A bank has very little clout with Apple. Unless they hold a significant amount of Apple stock or Apple loans (which Apple has almost none).

Re:Funny

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm a USAA member, and while it isn't some big technical feat of wizardry... I love being able to deposit checks from home. When first released it was Windows only, but they promised a Mac version "soon" and actually delivered on that promise in a timely manner.

They're one of the few businesses I can say I'm completely happy with. They actually still buy into the "quaint" principle that they exist to serve their customers.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of that is because they're less of a company and more of a co-op. A very very very big one with a ton of money to work with at any given time.

Re:Funny

[SpyPlane]

Also a customer and agree that the Deposit@Home program they have is amazingly useful. I hate getting checks from people, but it is nice being able to deposit them from my desk in one minute.

Also agree that they are probably the least evil company in the banking world. I use them for nearly all of my services (banking/loans/insurance) and they always have the best rates and the best support.

Re:Funny

[mosch]

I've never used them for banking.. BUT for insurance.. they are by far the best i've ever seen

I've had pretty much every possible kind of account with USAA, and they're completely top notch.

I just tried out the updated app, and the Deposit@Mobile feature worked perfectly. I'm a fan.

Re:Funny

[Specter]

"for insurance.. they are by far the best i've ever seen"

I'll second that endorsement. USAA is simply one of the best companies I've ever worked with.

Interesting...

[natehoy]

I was involved in a conversion to "Check Imaging" (take a picture of all of the checks, so you don't have to physically sort all of the originals into customer statements) back in the 90's. Now some banks are going a step past that and having the customer take the image.

I wonder how much "reverse fraud" is possible with this? I take a picture of a $1000 check, and the person who wrote the check says "hey, wait a minute! I only wrote that check for $100, the person who cashed it faked that image!"

I think if I ever cashed checks that way, I'd keep the originals in my firebox for a couple of months so I could produce the original check if there were any questions.

Re:Interesting...

[jandrese]

My guess is when the other guys calls his bank to complain, they call your bank, and then your bank asks you to present the check as proof. They then analyze the check for forgery and throw you in jail if they find any. Pretty similar to what they do to people who write in numbers on checks currently and try to change the value line.

Re:Interesting...

[rm999]

"I wonder how much "reverse fraud" is possible with this? I take a picture of a $1000 check, and the person who wrote the check says 'hey, wait a minute! I only wrote that check for $100, the person who cashed it faked that image!'"

I'm confused, in your scenario who is committing the crime? I see problems either way. If it is the person who wrote the check, there is still an image of the check. So if the check says "One thousand dollars" on it, he's out of luck - he can't claim it said 100.

If the person who is scanning the check modifies it, not only is he committing a crime, he is risking his credit rating. It's easy to get caught too - I think about half the people I know who write checks have carbon copies of their checks, and almost all businesses have electronics copies. Anyway, it's possible to modify checks as it is, that crime is nothing new.

Re:Interesting...

[Otto]

USAA and a few other banks have been doing this for ages.

I know that USAA in particular already has a system that lets users scan checks themselves with a PC and a scanner, and then can deposit the check via email or the website or what have you, simply by sending the image file to them.

So the only thing interesting here is really a) they're going to do it via an iPhone app, and b) the iPhone picture quality is now considered good enough for this sort of thing.

Re:Interesting...

[natehoy]

I imagine so. That's why I'd file the original safely away until well after it has cleared, rather than voiding and/or destroying it immediately.

Re:Interesting...

[natehoy]

Right, I was referring to the following scenario:

You write me a check for $1000. I cash it, as is, for the agreed-upon $1000 face value. I wait a couple of weeks for the check to clear, then destroy the check.

When your statement arrives, you call your bank, feigning offense, and claim that the check was for $100 and that I've obviously altered the check or the image before submitting it. Since I destroyed the original check, I have no way of proving that you wrote the check for $1000 originally.

Which is why I'd be sure to keep the original check in my grimy paws if I ever decided to use an application like this. :)

Re:Interesting...

[hax0r_this]

If it is the person who wrote the check, there is still an image of the check.

Right, but the person who wrote the check is claiming the image is faked. They can intentionally not keep a carbon copy, or better yet just make sure the last 0 doesn't go on the carbon copy. The only evidence the bank has of a check for $1,000 is an easily faked image submitted by the customer. Everything else says it was a check for $100.

Of course the same thing applies to a real check...

Re:Interesting...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think if I ever cashed checks that way, I'd keep the originals in my firebox for a couple of months so I could produce the original check if there were any questions.

I've never had an issue with USAA's "Deposit @Home", but I do take the precaution you mention (albeit with the checks voided). Then after a few months I destroy them.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you ask "why does your handwriting say One Thousand on the line below the numeric value?"

You guys are trying to split atoms when you should be tying your shoes.

Re:Interesting...

[locnar42]

This is part of the reason banks have to honor what the amount as written in longhand rather than the numeric value. If the box says $1000.00 but the longhand text says "one hundred and no/100" then the check is for $100.00. So unless you can change that to say "thousand" when it used to say "hundred" then it doesn't matter.

Oh God Make It Stop

[BadAnalogyGuy]

When I voted for Obama, I voted for change. Not the kind that jingles in the purse pocket of the 90 year old lady standing in front of me at the Piggly Wiggly searching for her checkbook in her handbag. I understand that we probably can't leave these grannies without their paper checks, but at some point, probably during the Obama administration, a bunch of them will die off. We should use that as an opportunity to do away with checks completely.

Electronic bank transfer is where it's at. Paperless society. Swipe and go at the grocery store.

Please Mr. Obama, implement real change. Get rid of checks.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

When I voted for Obama, I voted for change. Not the kind that jingles in the purse pocket of the 90 year old lady standing in front of me at the Piggly Wiggly searching for her checkbook in her handbag. I understand that we probably can't leave these grannies without their paper checks, but at some point, probably during the Obama administration, a bunch of them will die off. We should use that as an opportunity to do away with checks completely.

Electronic bank transfer is where it's at. Paperless society. Swipe and go at the grocery store.

Please Mr. Obama, implement real change. Get rid of checks.

you're aware that the US government can't abolish checks, right?

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Guse]

*This* is why you voted for Obama? I'm not sure this is the kind of change he had in mind... I think he was talking about more the "government as usual" type of change, not "I'll make your every fantasy come true" kind (although, admittedly, he did all but say that during the campaign). Me? I don't want a paperless society. I prefer to pay in cash for things (no, not a check card) and use the credit card only when I have no choice. I use checks to pay for services for the house like appliance repair, contractors, etc. I like it this way and can't see any reason to switch. Heck, I'd make the argument that my way of doing it is *less* prone to fraud than all electronic. You use your check card and leave my cash and checks alone.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[BadAnalogyGuy]

*This* is why you voted for Obama?

This and the unicorns.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Guse]

Those were an important platform.

I have to admit that my sarcasmometer was registering at 50/50. I couldn't figure out if you were being facetious or not. This leads me to believe you were, so I'm sorry.

P.S. Why did Chrome's spell-checker accept "sarcasmometer"? Does this exist? Can I get one?

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Ethanol-fueled]

Take the checks away from the old ladies and they'll still be wasting the line's time digging through their purse full of change and coupons or arguing with the cashier about being charged 27 cents more because they read the wrong price tag.

Instead ask for an end to bonuses for store managers (and other corporate trough-feeders) as rewards for keeping payrolls low. Then the people in line will have another line to checkout when some tremulous, bitchy old bag cries and moans and makes the cashier call somebody else to go check the warehouse for more Depends. And 40 people won't have to be fistfucked through 2 lines during peak hours.

Surprisingly enough, my experience in retail has taught me that the best, most polite customers are Hispanics and blacks. The worst customers are stinky, filthy Indians and Arabs who will load up shopping carts full of shit and either leave them in the store or toss out items 1 by 1 when they get all the way to the damn check-out line. Asians and Jews are awful because they are pushy, picky assholes with chalkboard-screech voices. I had to deal with a kike schvitzing about how the menorahs in my store were made in China. Cripples are also assholes, but they are that way because God hates assholes and punishes them accordingly. And old people, of course, are always no fun.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Tanispyre]

Keep Cheques. Get rid of Cash. Nothing erks me more that "cash only" establishments. If you are too cheap to buy a card reader than you should take my cheque. Cash is for crooks and tax evaders.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

When I voted for Obama, I voted for change. Not the kind that jingles in the purse pocket of the 90 year old lady standing in front of me at the Piggly Wiggly searching for her checkbook in her handbag. I understand that we probably can't leave these grannies without their paper checks, but at some point, probably during the Obama administration, a bunch of them will die off. We should use that as an opportunity to do away with checks completely.

Electronic bank transfer is where it's at. Paperless society. Swipe and go at the grocery store.

Please Mr. Obama, implement real change. Get rid of checks.

you're aware that the US government can't abolish checks, right?

They don't have the Constitutional authority for the War on (some) Drugs (particularly the asset forfeiture laws) or the bank bailouts or the Federal Reserve or warrentless wiretaps or detaining citizens without charges and due process or collusion with ATT either. Those were stopped by a lack of authority, right?

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[antifoidulus]

That and people who want to buy things as anonymously as possible, cash is still the only real anonymous payment method left.

As per cash only places, they may very well be cash only to avoid having to pay sales tax, which in certain places in the world(ie Europe), ends up being a lot of money.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[rednip]

*This* is why you voted for Obama?

Actually, scanning checks locally has been a feature for a number of people who accept checks for a number of years now, but hey why not take any opportunity to whine about Obama. No really, please do, as in the end your just betting against the American worker.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Tanispyre]

Like I said. Cash only is the realm of crooks and tax evaders

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[oh_bugger]

I LOVE Piggly Wiggly!

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

"Cash only" establishments are just trying to get by.

They're not evading taxes, they're avoiding the service charge that Visa/Mastercard charges them on every transaction. In most businesses profit margins are very small, and the extra 5%-10% that the credit card companies skim off the transaction (particularly on small purchased) can eat up the entire profit.

Many businesses depend on cash customers because they make zero profit on credit card customers -- they just accept credit cards to increase their volume so to bring overall costs down, and hope and pray that they get enough cash customers to make a profit.

You know that "cash back" that credit card companies give you on each purchase? They're just giving you a cut of the money that they're wringing out of the merchant.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Markemp]

And the government doesn't want the competition?

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[nxtw]

Keep Cheques. Get rid of Cash. Nothing erks me more that "cash only" establishments. If you are too cheap to buy a card reader than you should take my cheque.

There is some risk involved in taking a check. Assuming the piece of paper is in fact legitimate, one has no way of knowing if the account has enough funds or if the account is even open. There is much less risk when using cash or electronic payments.

Plus, retailers that want to reduce the risk of fraud will require customers to present valid government issued photo identification when paying with a check - and this is very time consuming for cashiers to verify. It is especially annoying when people use checks in the express checkout lane.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[ksheff]

Cash has a place. Do you write a check to a kid to mow your lawn, buy something at a yard sale, or when giving a random tip? Cash can be easy to manage too if one is using the 'envelope system' for household budgeting - you can't accidentally spend more than you've decided at the outset because when the envelope is empty, you're done for that pay period. This is important if one has a spouse that as the "I have a checkbook/debit card, so that means I can buy w/o thinking" mindset.

If the 'cash only' businesses are too cheap to pay for a card reader and the associated transaction charges, they are also probably too cheap to want to pay bank charges for check deposits. Although there are some costs to taking cash (employee theft and possibly a need for an armored car pickup for bank deposits), it's easy to quickly set up shop (ex: flea markets). Some cash only businesses take advantage of some people who prefer cards by installing ATMs at their location and get a cut of the ATM fees.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that "cash only" places seem to be a lot cheaper than ones that take CC. For me - it's worth it.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[sbeckstead]

Wow, you must know this guy we have around here that says the internet is only for crackpots and pornographers. Or maybe he knows you, hmmm not sure how that works...

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[morgan_greywolf]

P.S. Why did Chrome's spell-checker accept "sarcasmometer"? Does this exist? Can I get one?

Yeah. Like everything else, you can buy a sarcasmometer on eBay.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[davester666]

> This and the unicorns.

You know, I had to go out and have a custom unicorn horn tip cover made, just for my own safety. Those things are pointy!

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[fishbowl]

>the extra 5%-10% that the credit card companies skim off the transaction

You misspelled "one or two percent."

Can you even show me a merchant account agreement that charges the low end of your claim?

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[The_mad_linguist]

Discover might, although I think they top out at 4%

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[lwsimon]

I can, if I can dig it up. I've since cancelled the account.

Very low-volume businesses get charged this. I ran a photography studio, and probably received 5-10 transactions per month via credit card. I was charged 7.2% plus fees for this service.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[anegg]

Where do the people come from who want the government to step in and force everyone else to do what they think is a good idea, just because they think it is a good idea?

If enough people don't like checks, and enough people stop using them, they may eventually go away. Until then, if enough people like using them that they continue to use them, just why should the government step in and abolish them?

If I'm reacting inappropriately to a sarcastic comment, please ignore what I just said.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Adult sites can easily have to pay 15-20%. It's pretty ridiculous.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[ksheff]

No really, please do, as in the end your just betting against the American worker.

Like the ones that think that buying lottery tickets is a good way to make money? Especially the idiots who give their tickets to convenience store clerks and ask what they've won.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[JourneymanMereel]

The other reasons that there are "cash only" places...

1. They may wish to avoid paying the "credit card tax"... not sales tax, which they actually just pass directly on to you (at least here they do... I get a subtotal that goes to the store and then a final total that includes sales tax). But most credit card companies take a certain percentage of the sale as their processing fee... not to mention actually have a transaction fee at the same time.

2. They may not want checks because they are such a hassle to deal with. If one bounces, they have to go after you directly to collect that money.

Cash doesn't bounce... and it doesn't mysteriously divert itself to some processing company. Sometimes it disappears, but theft has been a problem long enough that most places have some means to deal with it.

Not that I like the processes... heck, I dislike it when places won't take my desired card even though they accept other cards. I rarely carry cash and only use checks for person-to-person transactions.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Cyner]

It's more than just the transaction fee. My uncle owns a bar and we were just talking about this two days ago. His bank charges him 1.7% per transaction. Then they charge him a monthly account fee, a statement fee, deposit fee, and the list goes on. Most of these fees are totally unavoidable. By the time it's all added up it's about 4.5% of the CC revenues. That's only if it's Visa or Mastercard; Discover and American Express are slightly worse.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

You know that "cash back" that credit card companies give you on each purchase? They're just giving you a cut of the money that they're wringing out of the merchant.

Right, like the only money the credit card companies make is on the merchant fees. I'm pretty sure some of that cash back I'm getting is from other card holders who are in debt and paying upwards of 18% interest rates.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[ajlisows]

I had a Merchant Account of some sort (I honestly don't remember the details) a few years back. I could accept Visa and Mastercard but the fees for other cards (Discover, American Express) were pretty insane. I'm not going to guarantee that my statement is factual but I think Discover cards were between 4-6%. That is a pretty significant percentage.

Heck, even 1-2% can be significant for small business owners. There is a local liquor/basic grocery store across from my house. I've helped them install security cameras and some POS software in exchange for some free merchandise so they talk pretty freely with me about their margins. About a month ago we were talking and the owner was telling me that One of the highest volume things they sell are individual packs of cigarettes. They charge $6.41 for a pack of Marlboro's. They make $0.21 off the transaction, or ~3.3%. Not exactly a really high mark up. Make the prices any higher and the customers may start traveling two extra blocks to a chain gas station. I'm real close to a college campus and they get tons of college kids that come in and swipe the credit/debit card every other day for $6.41...of which 1.5% goes to credit card processing fee. It literally cuts their profit in half but they have to accept it or business will go elsewhere.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Bill_the_Engineer]

A friend of mine owns a fabric store. You wouldn't believe the number of people who would use a credit card to purchase items less than $1.50. She actually loses money on these transactions, but comes out ahead when she sells fabric by the yard (or better yet by the spool). She has no choice on the matter, since her bank agreement forbids any minimum purchases or additional fees. She doesn't want to raise the prices because it penalizes the people who uses cash.

She likes checks from her regular customers. She seldom has a NSF (non-sufficient funds) and when it happens the customer usually takes care of the bank fees. Best of all, she doesn't have to share the proceeds with some financial network.

Besides I see nothing wrong with "Cash only" establishments. I think it's ridiculous for it to become acceptable that VISA or Mastercard get a cut of every monetary transaction.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[RLaager]

AFAIK, the merchant agreements prohibit fees for credit card users, but don't prohibit cash discounts.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[DinDaddy]

Amex used to be 5 or 6%. I don't know their current rate.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... The president doesn't have control over this. Checks are not money, the government does not control them. Checks are simply a record of money transfer which the banks allow their customers to use.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[chez69]

The largest credit card issuers make more money on transactional fees volume then on interest income, it's not even close. Not only does the issuing bank get a cut, but VISA/mastercard/etc and merchant bank get a cut.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[bhiestand]

You know that "cash back" that credit card companies give you on each purchase? They're just giving you a cut of the money that they're wringing out of the merchant.

Right, like the only money the credit card companies make is on the merchant fees. I'm pretty sure some of that cash back I'm getting is from other card holders who are in debt and paying upwards of 18% interest rates.

It's not. Cash back rewards are almost always under 1.5%, and percentage cuts of transactions are almost always over 2%. Not to mention the transaction fees, bank fees, monthly service charge, etc. As has already been shown elsewhere, the credit card+bank typically takes at least 4% of credit card transactions in straight fees.

Their service agreements with the merchants require "no minimum purchase" and "no credit card fees". They have effectively colluded with the rest of the oligopoly to ensure all credit card companies have the same requirements. They then use the cash back "rewards" as a lure to convince customers to use their cards more often. Most consumers intentionally use their credit cards more often because it gives them a cash back reward. Merchants are forbidden from passing the costs on to the consumer in a direct, obvious way, so the consumers are unaware that they are actually costing themselves money by using credit cards.

It's a giant, brilliant scam.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Anonymous Coward]

I, like many people I know, use credit/debit cards to avoid carrying cash or dealing with ATM fees.

I really wish the US had a sane payment scheme as credit cards (at least as they are currently setup) are clearly not it.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Cash back rewards are almost always under 1.5%, and percentage cuts of transactions are almost always over 2%.

So what? That doesn't mean the cash back money comes directly from the merchant fee money. It's not like American Express keeps a separate account where they put the merchant fees and only pays out cash back to card holders from this bank account. They get income from a number of different sources (I'll go out on a limb and suggest the biggest portion of which is from interest paid on debt) and they have a number of things they pay money out on. Just because one outflow of cash is slightly less than another inflow doesn't mean that all of the outflow comes from that one inflow.

Imagine you have a regular job from which you make most of your income. But you also have a little side business that makes $100/month. Your cable bill is $75/month. By your logic, your main job doesn't pay for cable at all, it comes 100% out of the side business. How would the customers of this side business feel knowing that the only reason they have to pay such high prices is to cover your cable bill? If you didn't have to watch cable, they wouldn't have to pay as much, right? Let's say you also pay a cell phone bill of $50/month. This is also less than your income from your side job, so again by your logic it must come 100% from the side job. But now you're paying out $125/month out of an income of only $100. That obviously makes no sense, and neither does tying cash back rewards directly to merchant fees.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[fishbowl]

>Make the prices any higher and the customers may start traveling two extra blocks to a chain gas station.

Yes, I did exactly that to get them for $1.20 a pack instead of $1.60. Of course I started smoking when they were 65 cents. I think I quit at $1.75. I can't imagine paying six bucks. That passed the commodity price of tobacco a long time ago, but that's not really the issue. People are not only addicted to nicotine, they are also addicted to the whole experience, which includes the packaging and the point of sale. Buying commodity tobacco at market price and rolling your own cigarettes isn't part of that experience (except for old people and hippies, and I *am* just talking about tobacco in this instance.)

Five ounces of Drum or American Spirit is about $20 still, right?

Most smokers wouldn't recognize a bushel of tobacco leaves if you dropped it on their head.

But people don't just want tobacco, they want *cigarettes*, and they want a certain brand, down to the very strain of tobacco used, the fertilzer used, the climate it's grown in, the way it's cured and dried, the stuff that's added, the shape of the filter, it's even down to the specific crinkle of the cellophane wrapper. Nobody has solved this equation more effectively than Marlboro, and that's why they can get -- my god -- six bucks a pack now -- and not only that, they can get it while giving a three percent margin to the retail outlet. This is amazing.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[ajlisows]

Actually, I used to "Roll My Own" smokes. Actually it wasn't so much "rolling" because I purchased loose tobacco and tubes with filters attached and had a machine to stuff them. When I started doing that (I'd say about 7 years ago) I was paying about $12 for a Carton (200 Cigarettes). I stopped doing it out of laziness about two years ago but recently was going to get back into it. They had increased bags of tobacco enough that I was looking at $40 per carton to do it myself. The savings was not worth my time (see below for my purchasing habits)

So now I bounce between buying them online (yes, I have a good overseas source that does not report to the IRS. No, I will not talk about who they are) and buying whatever brand is on sale. While everyone else pays $6.50 for a pack I pay $2.40 from the online sources, and usually $2.50-$4.00 for on sale brands (it is not unusually for something like Camel #9 to be buy one get one free. The cheapest cigarettes I get around here are the Marlboro 72's when they are buy 1 get 1 free. They go normally for about $4.75 a pack so they are somewhere around $2.50 when they are B1G1.

But yes, there are plenty of smokers that freak out if they cannot get their usual brand of smokes. That is odd to me as I dislike smoking the same thing all the time. All cigarettes (From roll your own, to American Spirit, To Marlboro Lights, to Parliments, to Camel really all have very subtle nuances when it comes to flavor, filter texture, smell, and overall smoking experience.

I'll fully admit to being pretty addicted to Nicotine. At this point in time in my life...I have no problem with that fact. I never think "I wish I had never started smoking" or "I wish I could quit" or "I don't even enjoy it" which are comments you year from a lot of smokers. I really like smoking cigarettes. I enjoy nearly every cigarette I smoke (sometimes I get a few crappy smokes in a pack or something). I have not even considered quitting. Future lifestyle changes may change my mind (I intend to have children in the next few years and I don't think I want to smoke with an infant/toddler in the house) but until then....I'll be enjoying my smokes.

Re:Oh God Make It Stop

[bhiestand]

I couldn't agree more! It's ridiculous that it's gotten this insane, and that the average consumer doesn't know or care.

For ATM fees, though, I like to use USAA. They refund my ATM fees :D

App Store Approval Process?

[jDeepbeep]

What would REALLY be a laugh would be if Apple deletes this app from the App Store. If they do that the way they normally do, it will be without explanation and without appeal. I'd like to see how it turns out if they try that against someone with clout like a bank.

I'd be interested to watch the progress. The Bank of America app flew right through apparently. Now only if theirs was more useful, I'd use it.

State of the art

[mlgm]

Taking a picture of a paper check really sounds like state of the art in electronic banking :-).

Living in Europe, the last time I used a check was maybe 10 years ago.

Re:State of the art

[Shados]

Europe or not, changes little, if you thought you were so far ahead in technology (at least for this). The only times I've used checks myself in the last 2 decades is to setup direct deposit with an employer (I could just give them my numbers, but I had the check laying around), and when I had to pay rent to a landlord that still does things old school.

But there's lots of market segments that will require paper trail for certain types of transfers, so even in europe, there's a lot of checks going around, just not between individuals.

Re:State of the art

[Albanach]

Indeed. It's all a bit strange in the US. If you owe someone money you have to write a cheque. Apparently procedures arr so lax though that by having the account number and routing code, people can empty your bank account.

There doesn't seem to be any reasonable way for ordinary bank customers to transfer money to customers of other banks. So in the UK with faster payments now in place at most banks, you can send money to someone else's account alost instantly. In the US, you write a cheque, put it in the post and wait. Then the recipient gets it and sits on it for a few weeks/months until they get to the bank and deposit it. In the meantime, you have to keep track of outstanding cheques in case someone sits on it for several months then sends you overdrawn.

For most other functions, US banks ahve done a pretty reasonable job of getting things automated and electronic. Given the high cost of processing cheques, I'm at a complete loss as to why they still exist let alone are in day to day use.

Re:State of the art

[athakur999]

Checks are still a good way for two individuals to exchange money. Neither the payer or the payee has to pay any service fees (something you can't say for credit card or debit card payments) and there is some protection for the buyer (something you can't say for cash - you can't tell your bank to stop payment on a $20 bill).

Anyway, many banks in the US do allow you to transfer money electronically to accounts at other banks, but many of them charge fees for outgoing transfers. Electronic transfers to other accounts at the same bank are usually free.

In the retail world, many stores will convert checks to electronic transfers anyway. You write the check and they scan it at the point of sale and draw the money immediately.

Re:State of the art

[Neil Watson]

Canada is in the same boat. It is very annoying. I have corporate account and a personal account. To pay myself I have to write a cheque, to me, from the corporate account and deposit the cheque into my personal account via ATM then wait 2 days for it to clear.

Re:State of the art

[AdamWeeden]

Then let me ask how you would handle the following situation (one of the few in which I use checks):

* I have a friend who watches my son during the day.
* I need to pay this person every two weeks.
* I need proof that I've paid this person for a given time period so no disputes arise.
* Being as this person only watches my child (apart from hers) she is not a "business" per se and thus doesn't accept credit cards.

I am honestly not being snarky or combative, but if checks are truly a thing of the past in some places I would like to see what they've been replaced with.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.
I haven't seen a European check since the 1980's, and have had to deal with payments in half the countries of the EU. Every payment that needs a paper trail is done through a bank transfer, usually with an IBAN-numbered account if done internationally.

Re:State of the art

[Kozz]

Checks are still a good way for two individuals to exchange money. Neither the payer or the payee has to pay any service fees ...

Well, that seems to be changing in some cases. In recent months, my wife has attempted to cash personal checks at the bank from which they were drawn. Since she does not also have an account there, they not only charge her a $1.50USD fee, but they insist on taking her thumbprint! It's definitely eliminated that bank from future services. Way to alienate your potential customers -- soak them with fees and make them feel like a criminal. Nice!

Re:State of the art

[mandark1967]

A Money Order should suffice as long as you retain your copy.

Re:State of the art

[Markemp]

And that is sooo much more convenient than keeping a checkbook around.

Re:State of the art

[TheSunborn]

There doesn't seem to be any reasonable way for ordinary bank customers to transfer money to customers of other banks

Really? That sound insane. Here in Danmark I can just walk down to the ATM enter a target account and transfer the money that way(It's even free I think). It will even print a slip, with the transfer details so I can prove that I did transfer money.

Or I could use this fancy new internet bank thing, which allow me to view all my accounts, and transfer money to anyone with a bank account in EU. And it's all free(Well atleast internal in denmark, it might cost a bit to transfer to other countries), because its so much cheaper for the bank when I use the internet, compared to me having to walk down to the branch building and talking to them in person. (And they even support Both Linux and MacOS)

Re:State of the art

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

You didn't state where you are, but in Canada, Paypal now allows fee free person to person transfers when funded by a bank account. Takes a few days to clear though.

Or you could also use Interac direct money transfers if you both use one of the participating banks. If the recipient doesn't use a participating bank, I think Interac actually mails them a cheque.

Re:State of the art

[trentblase]

Yeah, what did they do before checks? The person receiving cash wrote a receipt. This is all the proof you need (although potentially as much trouble as writing a check).

Re:State of the art

[vlm]

* I have a friend who watches my son during the day.
* I need to pay this person every two weeks.
* I need proof that I've paid this person for a given time period so no disputes arise.
* Being as this person only watches my child (apart from hers) she is not a "business" per se and thus doesn't accept credit cards.

I am honestly not being snarky or combative, but if checks are truly a thing of the past in some places I would like to see what they've been replaced with.

This isn't very complicated. Signed receipt. I, the undersigned, aka "AdamWeeden's Friend", acknowledge than I received $20 cash on date X for baby sitting little AdamWeeden Jr. for the two week period of Y to Z. "AdamWeedens friend" signs the receipt, you keep the receipt in your file cabinet.

A signed hash file of a receipt would probably work just as well, although they are obviously opening themselves to a known plaintext attack.

Technically, the IRS would be interested in this transaction, but in practice probably not. None the less, I would be very careful to leave language like "employed by" out of the receipt. If something happened to your friend (slipped on a banana peel thrown by little AdamWeeden Jr and broke a bone or something) your insurance company would probably be highly agitated by the whole situation. Neither problem area is much affected by check vs receipt, of course.

Re:State of the art

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

A Money Order should suffice as long as you retain your copy.

I'm not the OP, but what a PITA that would be.

To write a cheque, I reach into my desk drawer, scribble on the paper, and hand it over. To get a money order, I need to physically go to a bank (or the post office), hand over cash to get the money order, AND pay a fee for the privilege. No thanks.

Re:State of the art

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

You should be able to set up Interac payments for that, or at the very least, ask your bank to stop putting holds on your corporate cheques.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

give them cash and ask for a receipt.

done

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what state you live in or what bank you bank with but as a resident of the U.S. in one of the least technically savvy states, I personally haven't owned a check in over 10 years. I haven't had anything but direct deposit for pay in that same time. I've never needed a check to set up direct deposit because there is this handy little form letter you can ask the bank for. I don't remember exactly when I first had the need to transfer money to someone else's account but I know that I've never needed a check to do it in the past decade or so although I admit it may take a day or so of processing time if its to an account outside of my personal bank, otherwise you can drop the "alost" and it just happens instantly. And it's exactly due to that hurry up and wait for them to deposit it that I stopped using checks for anything I could get away with around the time I got my first bank card 20-ish years ago.

I do think there are times when they are convenient for some things, much like bearer bonds, so the banks wont do away with them for quite some time but I have never had any problems getting long without them.

Re:State of the art

[GvG]

Over here (Europe) I'd just tell my bank (electronically) to transfer some amount from my account to hers. Banks don't charge you for that here. Actually, since this is a recurring payment I'd set it up once as a recurring payment and be done with it.

Re:State of the art

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

I'm at a complete loss as to why they still exist let alone are in day to day use.

Lack of an established better system, issues with carrying large amounts of cash, and the high cost of credit card processing fees.

Re:State of the art

[sbeckstead]

Of course it wouldn't send you overdrawn if you did your recording properly in the first place. All things being all electronic facilitates is faster fraud and screwups. At least with a system that still has a bit of slinkyness to it you can catch big errors before they bankrupt a company.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just so cute the way people in the EU think their organization of states is so novel and amazing ("I can transfer money to someone else in the EU!!!11")

At least, it is to someone who's ever been to the United States, where we learned to stop fighting each other one hundred and fifty years ago.

Re:State of the art

[mandark1967]

I fail to see in the OP's post where the term "convenient" was listed as a requirement. Perhaps you'll benefit from not interjecting "your own" requirements into OP's post long enough to re-read it and point out where I missed it?

In fact, OP only stated, "Then let me ask how you would handle the following situation (one of the few in which I use checks):"

My reply was neither snarky, nor combative. It simply listed an alternative. So...how 'bout skipping your snarky, combative replies?

The OP knows the person needs to be paid on a regular basis, "* I need to pay this person every two weeks.", and, "* I need proof that I've paid this person for a given time period so no disputes arise."

I see no reason why the OP cannot pick up several Money Orders during their next shopping trip for the amount in question, partially pre-fill them out, and put them in his/her lockbox at home (or somewhere convenient and safe) and then simply fill out the rest of the form, as needed.

I also fail to see where my original post (the first reply) was "redundant". Whomever modded my first reply as "redundant". You just wasted points that you could have used, more judiciously, elsewhere.

You may not "like" my reply, as it may seem inconvenient to "you" but, for all you know, OP may work in or near a location where they can get money orders quick and easy, so it is not a burden to them.

Re:State of the art

[Mascot]

I would log into my online bank, add an automatic payment for every two weeks to the person's account number, and check the "mail me a paper receipt for the transaction" box. A few days after each payment, I'd get the receipt of the transfer from the bank in my mailbox.

Granted, I'd never actually check that box. The only realistic reason for a dispute would be that I did not pay or the recipient did not notice the incoming cash on their statement. Should that happen I can always log in and pull up the past transactions for a quick screenshot, or order a printed receipt from the bank at that time.

Re:State of the art

[morgan_greywolf]

I don't think Shados is bullshitting about not using checks for the last 20 years. I have a landlord that insists on doing things old school, but other than that? I think I wrote a check maybe once or twice while I was waiting for my new debit card to be issued after my old one got lost, but that's about it. Everything else is done by debit or credit card, automatic transfers, etc.

OTOH, I do get checks on occasion, for instance, from mail-in rebates, or when my electric utility issued a refund of my initial deposit in the form of a check. I figure there's gotta be something like that still going on in Europe.

Re:State of the art

[Chirs]

I'm in Canada as well. It doesn't have to be like that.

I use President's Choice Financial for my personal account, and I can add accounts at other institutions to my account list. This allows me to transfer money between accounts (even between different institutions) with zero fees. Transfers between institutions take a day to clear.

Re:State of the art

[Albanach]

At least with a system that still has a bit of slinkyness to it you can catch big errors before they bankrupt a company.

Sometimes I wonder how countries outside the United States survive what with all these newfangled modern ways they're adopting. Their companies must be going bankrupt left, right and centre.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

I have regular payment accounts in both the Netherlands, and Sweden. I don't think either ING (the Dutch bank I have an account), or SEB (the Swedish bank) actually issue checks any more. I may be wrong, though.

Account-to-account transfers have been free since I can remember within European countries (international transfers do cost some fixed amount - a few dollars).

All bills are paid using giro transfers, and individual-to-individual payments are done similarly. All e-bay transactions I've done internationally within Europe were done with giro transfers, as are all reimbursements I get from European universities for travel.

The only time I deal with checks is when dealing with American banks/universities; I think most people in Europe under the age of 30 have never even seen a check, which is why they think checks are a quaint relic from the times of mail coaches.

Re:State of the art

[SBrach]

Checks are free, Money Orders aren't.

Re:State of the art

[firelord84]

Indeed. It's all a bit strange in the US. If you owe someone money you have to write a cheque. Apparently procedures arr so lax though that by having the account number and routing code, people can empty your bank account.

You do realize that (in the US at least) the account number and routing number are on every check written, don't you? That's why I've never understood why friends/family are so nervous about giving me those numbers so I can send them "electronic checks" via ING Direct. Now I usually just ask for a VOIDED check.

Re:State of the art

[St.Creed]

Money transfers are now limited to the cost of internal transfers, inside Europe (at least for consumers). That was made into law last year.

As for cheques, I believe the last time I saw someone use one was my father, about 30 years ago. Everyone uses bank transfers (in The Netherlands), which were mostly free until Europe started to limit the cost of international transfers to no more than the cost of national transfers. After that every bank raised the price of transfers to compensate.

Re:State of the art

[HAKdragon]

For what it's worth, I can get money orders with no fee at the service desk at my local grocery store.

Re:State of the art

[St.Creed]

In The Netherlands, you just do a bank transfer. You can even automate it. And the bankrecords are acceptable as proof in a court of law, and accessible to you - you can provide copies on request or ask the bank for a certified copy.

Ofcourse, if said person would rather not have the authorities look at it (being on welfare, for instance, and you cant receive ANY money then without a huge hassle, not even 5 euro's per month) there was the alternative option we took: pay them in cash and mail them (on the same day) a payment confirmation.

Re:State of the art

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Cool. What country and grocery store is that, if you don't mind me asking?

Re:State of the art

[anegg]

I believe that you can thank the FDIC "Know your customer" program for the hassle to which you refer. Prior to the 2001-09-11 destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, attempts to put the "Know your customer" program in place were being soundly rejected by the banks due to their effects on privacy. This program, by requiring all banks to somehow "know" everyone with whom they do business, and to report to the government any "suspicious" or "unusual" activity, acts to get information in to the government that would otherwise be inaccessible due to the need to have probable cause before issuing a search warrant. After the event I mentioned earlier, these programs where whisked into place. So cashing checks at a bank where you don't have an account, even when it is the bank upon which that check is drawn, is now very difficult because that bank has to somehow "know" you (i.e., by taking your thumbprint in this case).

Another example of this post-9/11 risk avoidance is a hesitancy to deal in cash at some financial institutions. Schwab refused to take a cash deposit from me of approx. $10K into my CMA account at one of their offices. I believe it was because they didn't want the risk of being responsible for that amount of "untraceable" value entering the system. I had to deposit the cash into my bank account, then transfer it to Schwab. If I turned out to be a Bad Person (tm) then Schwab could just point the investigators over to the bank, and it would be the bank's problem that they accepted such a large amount of an untraceable currency... Perhaps the presumption is that my bank could know me better somehow than Schwab could.

Re:State of the art

[Kadin2048]

Given the high cost of processing cheques, I'm at a complete loss as to why they still exist let alone are in day to day use.

I think the reason paper checks (or cheques, whichever you prefer) have hung on in the US is because, at least in part, the cost of processing them is borne by the Federal Reserve. Thus it's not a direct cost to the banks. In Europe, I don't think this was ever the case -- the banks there had a much greater direct incentive to replace the paper-check system with one that was electronic, and didn't involve hauling pieces of paper around. Maybe international borders figured into it, too (more red tape in hauling the bags of checks around?).

For a US bank to accept checks, in the sense of letting you deposit them into your account, doesn't involve that much. The really expensive parts -- transporting the checks around, operating the "clearinghouse" -- are run by the Federal Reserve. And although the Fed is theoretically a private organization, it might as well be a government agency at least in this instance. Since the banks aren't paying directly for the cost of processing, they don't feel the pain as much as they otherwise might. There's no incentive for them to start charging customers for the privilege of depositing checks (at least not personal customers; some business accounts do) -- they'd just lose customers to other banks who didn't. In a sense, it's a quasi-public agency doing what they're supposed to do: taking an expensive operation that each bank would have to do themselves (and would involve a lot of duplicated effort), and running it as efficiently as possible in a manner that all banks can take advantage of.

Arguably it's held back development of alternatives to checks, but in general the system does work very well. Although the Fed doesn't move around nearly as much paper as it used to (they started to go electronic on the backend after 9/11, when the grounded airplanes slowed down check processing tremendously), it's still a pretty impressive system. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'd prefer a giro-based "push" system rather than the "pull"-based draft one we have, but it's still better than a shoddy electronic system, which is all I'd trust the banks to deliver on their own.

Re:State of the art

[svirre]

I'd enter a recurring transaction in my on-line bank then click the 'send me a receipt' checkbox.

I havent used paper receipt for years though as the recipient will get an electronic confirmation (or letter if no e-mail is registered) immidiately, and I can allways pull the transaction log from the bank if I need proof.

Re:State of the art

[mindstormpt]

where we learned to stop fighting each other one hundred and fifty years ago

But still haven't mastered free money transfers to any account in the same country.

Re:State of the art

[xaxa]

I think most people in Europe under the age of 30 have never even seen a check, which is why they think checks are a quaint relic from the times of mail coaches.

They exist in the UK, and are used sometimes. There's almost always an alternative to me writing a cheque (I've used one in six months) but I do very occasionally receive them. It's always annoying, as I have to go to the bank with it. There used to be "postal banking", but that seems to have gone now everyone has Internet banking.

The last cheque I received was from my dad, who is quite old, for my birthday (although, last year he managed an online transfer). It'll probably be a few more weeks before I remember to drop it in to the bank.
The one before that was a refund from TFL (London Underground) when my electronic season ticket stopped working. They don't have my bank details (I'd paid cash) but did have my address. While cheques still exist, it seems reasonable to use them for stuff like this (although inconvenient for the individual).

Last time I overpaid a utility bill I got the refund by phone, which surprised me. They sent a letter with a number on. "Hello. Please enter your bank account number" "beep beep ... beep" "Your refund of seventy six pounds fourty four pence has been deposited. Thank you for using Thames Water [like I have a choice]. *click*".

Re:State of the art

[Kadin2048]

Well, okay -- but that's not really a superior system to checks; while the OP could use money orders, if the babysitter is willing to accept checks, I don't understand why he would.

At least that I've ever experienced, the only situations where money orders are appropriate are:

1. Someone without a checking account needing to make a payment to a payee that won't accept cash. (I knew some "off the grid" types who used Western Union money orders to pay rent, because they didn't want to have a checking account ... something about outstanding judgments against them.)

2. Making a payment via mail to a payee who won't accept a personal check due to the risk of fraud. (E.g. eBay purchases before they started mandating PayPal for everything. The money order is guaranteed not to bounce, so the payee can ship the item immediately, but it's safer than sending cash in an envelope through the mail. A certified check or "cashiers check" would also work for this, but many people are hesitant to take them either because they're afraid of forgeries or because they don't understand the difference from personal checks.) USPS MO's are the preferred product for this purpose.

In both cases, you're paying a premium for the money order, because the easier methods of payment are for some reason not available. (Cash and personal checks.) While you can in theory use a MO for anything that you'd pay via a check, I'm not sure why you'd want to outside some very specific scenarios.

Re:State of the art

[Darinbob]

But you have to know the other person's account number. Which presumably means you have to trust them. I'm not giving my bank account number and routing number to many people; well mostly because you can use those numbers to withdraw money as well since there's no "deposit only" routing number.

Oddly, even online bill pay costs money from my bank, yet another reason I avoid it.

A question is, what do old people in Europe do? Is this just a case of young people being blindly enthusiastic about new things and who laugh at the old ways as "quaint", or do people over there happily type in account numbers at ATMs to send 50 euros for their great grand child's birthday?

Re:State of the art

[mandark1967]

In the US, they're pretty ubiquitous.

Walmart and Kroger and KMart and CVS and Eccards and CircleK all sell moneyorders. Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

You pay a quarter for them at most places.

Re:State of the art

[VisceralLogic]

Indeed. It's all a bit strange in the US. If you owe someone money you have to write a cheque. Apparently procedures arr so lax ... people can empty your bank account.

You pirate! So that's where my money went!

Re:State of the art

[xaxa]

A question is, what do old people in Europe do?

The same, only if they don't want to use a computer they can
- go to a bank
- phone the bank (some banks offer this service)
- post bits of paper to the bank (again, some banks offer this).

Re:State of the art

[AdamWeeden]

A Money Order should suffice as long as you retain your copy.

While you have adhered to the text of my request, you have ignored the spirit. I doubt there are Europeans abandoning checks in droves in favor of money orders.

Re:State of the art

[AdamWeeden]

$20 cash on date X for baby sitting little AdamWeeden Jr. for the two week period

$10 a week? When can you start? ;)

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Withdray money? Since when? No one can take money from my account just by having my BIN or IBAN number, that's preposterous. I have given it out all the time for years and years and strangely have never been robbed.

In my country (Portugal), when I want to transfer money to someone's account I either go to the corner ATM machine (there's literally one on every street or so, and where, incidentally, I can do pretty much anything I want, from transferring money to paying utility bills, various kinds of taxes (road tax, yearly building tax, etc), buy tickets for shows, events or trains or even planes, top up my mobile phone, etc), or just log on to my banks website and save the trouble of actually having to walk. I'm 30 and have last seen a cheque probably in 1988 or thereabouts. We have a free and very good interbanking ATM network since the mid eighties, since then nobody bothers with cheques or paying cash anymore, everybody just uses their debit cards. This is not a new fad for "blindly enthusiastic young people". My 83 year old grandmother uses her debit card daily when she goes shopping, or goes to the salon get her hair done, or goes to the flower shop. My 60 year old father doesn't even bother with the ATMs anymore, he just uses online banking.

I go one step further and don't even worry with paying bills anymore, everything is automated. All utilities have an option to pay by Direct Debit in Account, they give you all the details right there on the bill on how to activate it. I simply go to an ATM machine or log on to my bank website and enter the Direct Debit Authorization and select a limit amount, and voila, every month the bill will be payed automatically up to the limit I chose. If the bill is over the limit I get an SMS or email warning me that the transaction failled, so I can review and act accordingly and decide it was an error on their part, or if I really left the lights on the whole month and the bill tipped over the limit. And if the bill was actually correct I simply log on to my email, find the electronic bill they send me in PDF and pay manually on an ATM or through the banks website.

Even the Pizza Hut guys carry mobile card readers, and have for years. I seriously can't remember the last time I actually had a need for physical money. Road tolls are payed automatically using an identifier (small plastic box, like 5x8 cm) glued to the inside of your windshield behind the rearview mirror, tied to your bank account. The same identifier can also be used to pay for car parking and even gas stations these days. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Verde and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multibanco .

Having lived in the US 2 years in 1999/2000, I was truly amazed at how primitve your banking and telephone/mobile phone services are. Even my itty bitty backwards country has you guys beat by a country mile.

Re:State of the art

[Neil Watson]

Try the other way around. From a commercial account to PC (which I have).

Re:State of the art

[TheRaven64]

Sounds exactly the same situation as paying my rent; you want a standing order. You can set this up by visiting the branch, or via telephone or Internet banking. It will pay the other person a fixed amount regularly. They can check with their bank that it has been paid, and if they claim it hasn't then your bank can provide written confirmation that the money did go to their account, in which case they can start asking their bank why it never arrived. The only thing you have to remember is to stop the payments when they stop providing the service. You've been able to do this in the UK (and, presumably elsewhere) by walking into your bank for longer than I've been alive, via telephone since I was very small (I remember my mother being pleased when her bank introduced it in the late '80s) and via the Internet for over ten years.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

Receipts?

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon, because i'm a bastard.

The Fed does not bear the cost of processing, that is bullcrap. They charge banks out the ass to route paper. They are doing all they can to get banks to use image processing. A lot of banks set up relationships where they exchange images directly for no cost.

When you process checks electronically it's not that expensive, except to fund upper management.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm at a complete loss as to why they still exist let alone are in day to day use

Overdraft fees

Re:State of the art

[TheSunborn]

But you have to know the other person's account number. Which presumably means you have to trust them. I'm not giving my bank account number and routing number to many people; well mostly because you can use those numbers to withdraw money as well since there's no "deposit only" routing number.

??? I have newer considered my account number a secret, and there is no way you can get any money from my account, just by knowing my account number*. How would you propose to use my account number to take money from the account?

Example: I have my own small company(Just me) and I always include all account information in the invoice. That way the customer can just pay me by doing a direct deposit to my account with a payment note, saying this is payment for invoice XX

*Unless the bank really fuck up, but in that case they do cover the costs of their own mistakes.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

How does online banking not solve this?

I'd transfer the money to the women, and she could either immediately look at her online statement to confirm the transfer has taken place or she could have you print the confirmation you got from your bank that the money had been transferred.

You could even set up a recurring payment to take care of it every two weeks.

Re:State of the art

[jsiren]

OTOH, I do get checks on occasion, for instance, from mail-in rebates, or when my electric utility issued a refund of my initial deposit in the form of a check. I figure there's gotta be something like that still going on in Europe.

Nope. They just asked for your account number and deposit the money.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Well the friend would give me his/her back account number and I would deposit the fee every two weeks directly to his/her account via web bank.

You can also set automatic payments every two weeks. The proof of payment is visible in your transaction records (paper proof can be obtained).

This how it would go e.g. in Scandinavia. I'm always amazed how backwards US banking system is.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

But our "shoddy electronic system" lets us do transfers instanteously for free including across country borders. It lets us automatically pay bills at no personal risk. It means if we get paid on Monday then we can spend it on Monday. Unemployed? Too sick to work? Retired? The government's payments are instant cash transfers too.

I grok that a misunderstanding of patriotism in the US means that even when you screw up it's unacceptable to admit it. But the problem is for immigrants it's like they've arrived in a third world country. You're so far behind not only the EU, but dozens of other countries too. You don't need to admit you were wrong, just fix the damn problems.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy.
You obtain the friends account number, and via internet-bank (access to your own bank account via internet, can see transfers in/out, see planned payments, transfer money between your accounts, pay bills and so on) transfer the money from you to the friend account. And the transfer is logged and you can obtain records for one year back.

You may even set up a recurring payment every two weeks with the same amount to the friend account and it happens automatic. I my bank all these services are free, I only pay once a year to have a VISA card.

All operations in the net bank are digitally signed, so this is proof that the operations is handled by you.
The digital signature is secured by a two pass security, one password of your own choosing and a little digital random generator. Both the random number and the password is needed to log in to the net bank and to make payments.

This is in Norway by the way.

Re:State of the art

[morgan_greywolf]

But, here at least, if someone has your bank account number they can wreck havoc on your life, everything from identity theft to fraudulently withdrawing money from your account. How do they prevent that?

Re:State of the art

[jsiren]

But, here at least, if someone has your bank account number they can wreck havoc on your life, everything from identity theft to fraudulently withdrawing money from your account. How do they prevent that?

I don't know where you are that a bank account number is sufficient information to withdraw money from a random account. The only thing you can do with a bank account number is deposit.

Re:State of the art

[Anonymous Coward]

I can do this through bill pay at my bank. In fact, I do do this to pay rent to my landlord. I have an automatic payment set up so the bank mails him a check every month. He deposits the check, and there is a scan of the check available through the bank's website. It works exactly the same way as it would if I actually mailed the check myself, except I save on postage.

Re:State of the art

[morgan_greywolf]

I don't know where you are that a bank account number is sufficient information to withdraw money from a random account.

The United States. And it's technically not, but since banks here are not very vigilant about these things, but with the account number, bank routing number and a check number, it's possible for fraudsters to do so.

Re:State of the art

[jsiren]

I don't know where you are that a bank account number is sufficient information to withdraw money from a random account.

The United States. And it's technically not, but since banks here are not very vigilant about these things, but with the account number, bank routing number and a check number, it's possible for fraudsters to do so.

Bank routing numbers are public information; anybody can come up with a check number; so the only possible secret is the account number...

In contrast, see here.

Re:State of the art

[ncc74656]

In recent months, my wife has attempted to cash personal checks at the bank from which they were drawn. Since she does not also have an account there, they not only charge her a $1.50USD fee, but they insist on taking her thumbprint!

Why is she not using the bank at which she has an account? That'd make more sense than using some other random bank.

(FWIW, I deposit checks through my bank's ATMs. I'm not even sure that would work if I were to try using another bank's ATMs.)

Re:State of the art

[Kozz]

You're not understanding. What I mean, by example:
My wife's sister has an account at First National Bank, and writes a check to my wife. So she (my wife) goes to a branch office of FNB, the bank upon which the check is drawn (not some random bank). She should be able to get cash straight away by presenting ID.

Do you mean to say that people should not be permmitted to cash checks unless they also have a checking account?

Re:State of the art

[ncc74656]

My wife's sister has an account at First National Bank, and writes a check to my wife. So she (my wife) goes to a branch office of FNB, the bank upon which the check is drawn (not some random bank). She should be able to get cash straight away by presenting ID.

Do you mean to say that people should not be permmitted to cash checks unless they also have a checking account?

It's my understanding that there are various options for cashing checks that may or may not involve banks. Most of them charge fees of some sort.

Are you saying that neither you nor your wife have a checking account into which you can deposit checks you receive? Where do you keep your money...under a mattress? It's not like there aren't tons of ways to open an account that won't charge monthly fees, either, so you'd end up saving money instead of handing it over to other banks or check-cashing outfits.

Not entirely new

[644bd346996]

USAA has allowed customers to scan and electronically deposit checks for quite a while. The only new thing here is the iPhone app. Still, it's pretty cool, especially compared to mailing checks in. (For those who don't know, USAA doesn't have physical branches. They were established by and for members of the military, and they've pretty much always been pioneers of remote banking, first by mail and phone, and now over the internet.)

Re:Not entirely new

[FoxFireX]

Actually, they do have physical branches. Well, branch. Just down the road in from me in San Antonio. Massive building on their campus along I-10. I still prefer scanning my checks in electronically, though, rather than remembering to take them there personally. Usually a bit of a line at their two ATMs.

Re:Not entirely new

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one Physical branch in San Antonio, and I think they are opening up another one soon, and one in Arizona too.

Re:Not entirely new

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used USAA FSB for about a dozen years. They also pay you back the fees that other banks charge for ATM usage, so I use any ATM that's convenient. When I first started I mailed in deposited checks (postage-paid of course). I've used their check-scanning system and look forward to their iPhone app. It keeps getting more and more convenient.

Neat idea, but...

[girlintraining]

Well, the only problem here is that when you write a check, there isn't an electronic record authorizing the release of funds. Which means it's entirely up to the debited account-holder to verify that the amounts are correct. This depends entirely on OCR. Even with a 99.99% accuracy rate, it's going to read some of those numbers wrong and some of those errors will not be detected for days, weeks, or even a month. I'm betting they didn't change their terms of use though to give the debited account-holder more than 48 hours to report fraud (pretty standard), meaning the bank is compromising the security of all of its account-holders and expressly disclaiming liability for this -- all in the name of convenience. If that's true, I'd consider not banking there anymore; They've bypassed most of the safeguards electronic and paper checks ensure -- namely the accuracy of information and longer audit trail.

Disclaimer: I haven't verified their terms of use. I could be wrong.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[644bd346996]

So, you're saying you wouldn't do your banking with USAA because they're willing to trust that you, as their customer, won't attempt check fraud? Regardless of the fact that I use USAA, I prefer my bank to think I'm more trustworthy about depositing checks than, say, a grocery store.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[DarkSarin]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You don't seem to know much about USAA...

They are, if nothing else, extremely cautious about that sort of thing from my experience. I bank with them (as well as have my auto insurance through them). I wouldn't switch away for some imagined slight. Not after having dealt with the HELL that other banks put you through if there is some sort of customer service needed. USAA is by far and away the BEST customer service bank I have EVER dealt with. Bar none. Nope, I'm not switching banks.

I've been using their deposit@home service for a while now, and it's great. This is just a minor evolution of that (camera instead of scanner), and I don't see much to make me think it's a huge difference.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[gordyf]

You enter the amount of the check when you upload the image. It may also perform OCR, but it doesn't rely upon it.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[OnlineAlias]

I used to implement systems that automated check imaging. The only thing on a check that is OCR'd is the MICR for the account/routing/check number, which was specifically developed to be machine readable. The handwriting for the check amount, even though it is semi-constrained, is not machine readable with any kind of accuracy. Those fields are split off and still entered manually by a human on the back end. The imaging software will do some wizz bang stuff like look for any lines or words written across the front (think "void") or for empty fields such as no signature. Any check that doesn't make it through with a very high certainty of the software getting it right will get rejected and put into an electronic bin for review.

I would guess that this service simply directs all of the electronic info (the check image and data entered by the customer) to a standard check clearing house. The only thing that changed here is who scanned it to begin with.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[SBrach]

If I deposit a check in a Bank of America ATM it automatically reads the handwritten amount using OCR. You can tell it it's wrong but I haven't had to. Then it prints you a receipt with images of all the checks you've deposited plus a breakdown of the cash you've deposited.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[girlintraining]

You don't seem to know much about USAA...

Given that its only office is on the East coast and I am not, I think that's a reasonable deduction and I said as much in my disclaimer...

Re:Neat idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that its only office is on the East coast and I am not

San Antonio's a few thousand miles from the east coast, you know.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[Zeek40]

It does perform OCR, but only on the Bank Routing number and account number. My boss's signature interfered with it on one check and it refused to let me submit it. After re-scanning it 3 times, I gave up and mailed it in. The value of the check gets verified by someone on their end. I accidentally transposed two numbers in the value of some other check and was credited the difference within 6 hours.

Re:Neat idea, but...

[chez69]

new OCR engines can easily read amount and the other 6 MICR fields. The tech has been around for a while now and works really well.

Oh the humanity

[barocco]

The sheer number of intricacies involved that are up for exploits just blow my mind, not to mention the faint awkward idea in the back of my head about uploading a picture of Knuth's reward cheque...

Save the trees! (for profit, of course)

[javacowboy]

Processing paper is expensive. Banks realize this, which is why they've been promoting ATMs, online banking, reducing hours for brick and mortar branches and reducing the availability of human bank tellers.

Unfortunately for the banks, many individuals and businesses still do business via paper checks. This is one means for the destination bank to save paper processing costs at their end. It's interesting that they've decided to do this by means of an iPhone app.

Re:Save the trees! (for profit, of course)

[Skater]

Unfortunately for the banks, many individuals and businesses still do business via paper checks.

Well, then the banks can make it easier and cheaper to do transfers between accounts. My fiancee and I live together, and every month she writes a check to me to help offset the bills and all that. I certainly don't want to trust Paypal (or pay their fees), so our options are to write a check or hand over several hundred in cash.

Re:Save the trees! (for profit, of course)

[javacowboy]

I'm in the same situation as you (well, ok, I just got engaged this weekend :) ) and I transfer money to my fiancee every month to pay my share of the monthly expenses. My bank, the CIBC, allows me to do a free email money transfer to her. All I need to do is click the link, fill in a question and answer, and click submit. She gets an email, answers the question correctly, and clicks submit to accept the transfer. Of course, it's a Canadian bank operating in Canada, but from what I understand, all the large Canadian banks allow you to do this free of charge. It saves me the cost of getting a new checkbook.

Re:Save the trees! (for profit, of course)

[vlm]

My fiancee and I live together, and every month she writes a check to me to help offset the bills and all that. I certainly don't want to trust Paypal (or pay their fees), so our options are to write a check or hand over several hundred in cash.

Been there, done that. We had an even simpler solution, she paid half the bills, I paid the other half. If you don't have enough bills to split the total evenly, get some more bills. Once we moved in together, more bills seems to appear naturally, like spontaneously generated, just like children.

Re:Save the trees! (for profit, of course)

[Skater]

Been there, done that. We had an even simpler solution, she paid half the bills, I paid the other half. If you don't have enough bills to split the total evenly, get some more bills. Once we moved in together, more bills seems to appear naturally, like spontaneously generated, just like children.

LOL. Nice. In our case, I've owned the house for over three years and she moved in a couple months ago, so all of the bills are in my name and probably will remain so until we actually get married, because we're too busy planning the wedding and honeymoon to worry about that.

I use it to cash rent checks

[Markemp]

Well, their Deposit@Home feature, which allows you to use a scanner to scan them in. Only works in Internet Exploder 32 bit version, which is annoying. But USAA is by far the best bank out there, frequently topping Four Seasons for the best customer service available. I don't have an iPhone, but this is a natural extension to their Depost@Home feature.

Re:I use it to cash rent checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure? I use Firefox without problems for Deposit@Home...

Re:I use it to cash rent checks

[644bd346996]

I've never had any trouble using Deposit@Home with dozens of versions of Firefox and Safari on my Mac, though I'll admit I've never tried it under Windows. It looks to me like the Windows version tries to interface directly with the scanner, whereas the Mac version is just a Java applet that lets you upload 200dpi grayscale jpeg images. That would explain a failure to work with 64-bit IE.

Re:I use it to cash rent checks

[DarkSarin]

Huh? I use it with firefox all the time....you must have something wacky going on. I haven't tried it with IE64 bit since I loaded win7-64bit. I'll give it a shot tonight....

Re:I use it to cash rent checks

[txsable]

There were some initial problems with the JRE and AdBlock extension for Firefox. If you updated the JRE and disabled extensions it would work. Nowadays, however, all the pieces seem to be playing nicely together and I haven't had any problems making deposits in the last year. I had some entertaining times when it wouldn't work in Fx, then wouldn't work in IE, then FX did work and such, but that was all shortly after the Deposit@Home service started (a few years ago now).

Re:I use it to cash rent checks

[Markemp]

Thanks for the info! I'll have to update and give it a try.

USAA is unique in its banking

[Tanispyre]

USAA (United Serviceman Automobile Association) is not your normal bank that has offices all over where you can make a deposit. It is a banking service available to military personnel and their dependents. It has always been set up so that servicemen deployed around the world can access their accounts. Before they wrote the iPhone app, members could scan their cheques and email them to the bank for credit, this is just an extension of that service, nothing new.

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[cosmicpossum]

United SERVICES Automobile Association

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Tanispyre]

Thanks, You are right.

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Alliant Credit Union allows scanning checks for deposit as well. You just scan it in and then keep it in your own file for 90 days in case any issues arise.

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You're both right:

The name is United SERVICES Automobile Association. It is an inter-insurance exchange under Texas law.

The business is insurance and financial services for Army service personnel and their dependents. Army officer & NCO personnel are insured by USAA proper, enlisted, dependants, and other "associate members" by subsidiaries. So if you have to "have some sort of insurance from USAA" (itself) and "approximately 60% of USAA's customers qualify" it means you are a current or former US army OFFICER or NCO.

Because of their unusual customer base, USAA is at much less risk for fraud on the part of the customers than other financial institutions.

They're also less risk of things like missed or late payments: Military officers are used to being punctual, accurate, and responsible when it comes to keeping their commitments: Their lives and those of their subordinates, friends, and countrymen often depend on it, as does their continued employment and career advancement - being this way is their JOB. That translates into drastically lower interest rates on loans and insurance and higher rates on savings. (Doesn't hurt that the "bank"(s) are a federal thrift and a credit union, either.)

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Ungrounded Lightning]

For "army" read "military service". Was started by army officers but now covers the other services - including the reserves.

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a dependent. I am married to a dependent of a USAA member and I have insurance (auto and homeowners), mortgage, credit, brokerage, IRAs and banking through them. They are the best bank / insurance company I have had the pleasure of doing business with.

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I am married to a dependent of a USAA member and I have insurance (auto and homeowners), mortgage, credit, brokerage, IRAs and banking through them.

Are you sure it's not with USAA-CIC?

From Wikipedia:

One of the characteristics that allows USAA to operate differently than almost every other Fortune 500 company is that it is not a corporation. The parent company, United Services Automobile Association is an inter-insurance exchange, the establishment of which is provided for under the Texas Insurance Code.[17] This insurance exchange is made up of current and former military officers and NCOs who have taken out P&C policies with USAA; thus they simultaneously are insured by each other and, as a group, own USAA's assets. ...

Other insurance services are provided by a variety of wholly-owned subsidiaries. Adult children of USAA members and U.S. military junior enlisted personnel make up a group known at USAA as "associate members" insured through a subsidiary called USAA-Casualty Insurance Company (USAA-CIC). USAA-CIC is not an insurance exchange but rather a Delaware Insurance Corporation. This is a subtle nuance but is important concerning the return of profit ...

And if having a policy with USAA itself, rather than USAA-CIC, is one of the requirements for using the scanned-check deposit service, then this subtle nuance also applies to this service: It would be limited to current and former officers and NCOs (and their spouses). (I suspect their minor children would not be eligible due to being minors. B-) )

Re:USAA is unique in its banking

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And if having a policy with USAA itself, rather than USAA-CIC, is one of the requirements for using the scanned-check deposit service, then this subtle nuance also applies to this service: It would be limited to current and former officers and NCOs (and their spouses)

Then again, the enlisted are also "associate members" and the service is particularly useful for deployed military. So perhaps limiting the iPhone app to current/ex officers/NCOs (and their spouses) is not what the restriction is about.

Another reason to hack an IPhone.

[Ouchie]

I can already hear the script kiddies cracking their knuckles in anticipation of this one.

Re:Another reason to hack an IPhone.

[Markemp]

You need an account at USAA to make a deposit. You need to be in the military or one of their dependents to open an account. You can only deposit to that account with this app. It's not like there are a lot of holes to the process.

Re:Another reason to hack an IPhone.

[644bd346996]

You also need some kind of loan with USAA (it can be a credit card) so that they can instantly debit your account to return the money if a check turns out to be fraudulent.

Re:Another reason to hack an IPhone.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need an account at USAA to make a deposit. You need to be in the military or one of their dependents to open an account. You can only deposit to that account with this app. It's not like there are a lot of holes to the process.

Nope - anyone can open a bank account. It's their other services, like insurance products, where you need to be military or a dependent.

Re:Another reason to hack an IPhone.

[SBrach]

Actually once you are a member, either through serving or being a dependent of someone who served and was a member, your dependents and spouses are then eligible. So, for example, my wifes father is a member and was eligible because his father served and is a member. Because my wife is a member, I was eligible. So even though neither I nor either of my parents served, I am a member.

Why iPhone Specific?

[s31523]

Seems like any camera phone should be able to snap a picture of a check and send it to the appropriate online location. In any case, sounds like a whole lot of risk for something that, at least in my current situation, is not very common. The last time I deposited a check was months ago.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[Markemp]

Some of us deposit many checks on a regular basis. It's either this or mail them in (at least USAA provides postage paid, pre-addressed envelopes for this free of charge as well). Or if you went to another bank, you could go to an ATM or a local branch, but then you have to log off of Warcraft for long enough to drive/walk somewhere, and who *knows* what kind of loot you might have missed out on! Besides, that Hodir rep doesn't farm itself. ;-)

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[644bd346996]

Why iPhone specific? Because the iPhone is the single most popular smartphone for personal use, and is much easier to develop and deliver apps for than most other camera phones. Eventually, USAA might make a similar app for the Pre or some Blackberries, but the market of potential users is probably too small to justify the expense.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[sottitron]

Its probably iPhone specific because the distribution system isn't open and so it is very difficult to trick someone into installing a hacked app onto their phone.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[GeckoAddict]

According to this wiki entry, Apple has roughly 10.7% of the market share of smartphones, while Symbian has 47%, Blackberry has 19.5%, Windows Mobile has 12.4%, and hell, even linux has almost 9%. So to say that the iPhone is is the single most popular is a bit of a stretch (even with the qualifier 'for personal use').

Arguing ease of development shouldn't really be a factor, because all they're really doing it saving a picture and sending it... it can't be that hard with any of the APIs (ridiculously easy with Win Mobile, for example) . But I think arguing that there's no market for potential users could be a bad argument.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[644bd346996]

Sure, there are a variety of Symbian phones that add up to more market share than the iPhone, but they're not the homogeneous platform that the iPhone is, what with there being a variety of user interfaces you have to target. The same goes for Blackberries and Windows Mobile, though to a lesser extent. There's no doubt that the iPhone version of an app is the binary that can be installed and run on the most physical phones owned by consumers. For other operating systems, you end up having to produce several different builds and a lot of the infrastructure to get the right app on to the phone.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the platform has been around a while, and gets tons of press, but how come I've never seen a Symbian phone, then? Is it mostly some kind of euro thing? I've seen more phones running various versions of PalmOS than I have Symbian devices.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[rsborg]

Apple has roughly 10.7% of the market share of smartphones, while Symbian has 47%, Blackberry has 19.5%, Windows Mobile has 12.4%, and hell, even linux has almost 9%. So to say that the iPhone is is the single most popular is a bit of a stretch (even with the qualifier 'for personal use').

You're conflating things... The guy said that the iPhone was the most popular phone, as opposed to mobile OSX (iphone OS) being the most popular.... it's a big difference, the UI (for now) and capabilities are roughly the same across the iPhone 2G, 3G and 3GS, the pixel width the same, and for camera, the lowest common denominator is pretty good. How many Blackberries have cameras? (I have no idea)... how many symbian or winmo devices do? You'd have to test to make sure the camera quality and UI worked on specific models. This is the strength (and drawback) of the iPhone... it's very uniform in capabilities and UI across all models and thus makes development easier for apps that use features like camera or accelerometer that are just not standard for other OS/brands.

Re:Why iPhone Specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting cowardly here, but I write these systems for a lot of banks, and could possibly be writing an app like this for Android/IPhone soon.

There's a very stringant image rejection process for determining if an image is valid. Things like dpi and image format are easy (300x300dpi monocrome G4fax TIFF) It's when you start getting into other things like making sure that there's a scribble in the area of the check where the signature has to be, and the number of black pixels vs the number of white pixels is only x ratio. Also the algorithms for determining if the image is skewed too much, or there's too large of a border on the top or bottom.

Basically on a regular PC the processing power to do this is pretty negligible, however it wouldn't surprise me a bit if your average smart phone can't handle the strain. I'm thinking that this company might be transmitting the image up to a server or something to do the actual image validation, in which case they run into the problems of not being able to massage the image into something acceptable and having to ask the user to take a picture in better light or something. Either way I can't really see this app being what you would call 'snappy', but it's really good for when your stationed in Afghanistan and your grandma sends you a $10 check for your birthday.

Bank disputes

[tepples]

Some people like having a physical record that they paid something

You mean like a bank statement?

In that case, some people like having a physical record that they paid something that they can use in disputes with a bank.

Re:Bank disputes

[deathlyslow]

I know of several times that I've been forced to produce a canceled check, either to prove I paid something or to prove how much was paid. Most banks now just take pictures of the checks anyway. I have to pay an extra fee to get the canceled checks back from the bank. My wife is an accountant so she is predisposed to having a paper trail.

Re:Bank disputes

[jokkebk]

You mean like a *receipt*?

I don't remember the time I last purchased something either over the web or counter that didn't come with printable receipt. Same goes with bills and online payment.

I'd also doubt that my bank would change the amount between me authorizing a payment and having the receipt available electronically, as their risks would most certainly outweigh the benefits.

Perhaps in countries where there's a history of banks systematically screwing with their customers and the justice system not helping that would be an issue, but at least here in Finland I would be worrying about alien abductions and government conspiracies against me personally as well, if I felt that checks would be the only way to have security.

And, I'm actually quite certain that checks can be forged more easily than you can build a banking system that automatically screws its customers, yet is not detected on the long run.

Re:Bank disputes

[tepples]

I don't remember the time I last purchased something either over the web or counter that didn't come with printable receipt.

What about the time you bought a printer online?

I'd also doubt that my bank would change the amount between me authorizing a payment and having the receipt available electronically

Optical character recognition can fail.

Re:Bank disputes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what scanners and PDFs are for.

Re:Bank disputes

[tepples]

The other party would claim that you modified the scan before presenting it as evidence in the dispute.

Re:Bank disputes

[bcmm]

There is no bloody way you couldn't intercept and modify data coming from this iPhone app. Encryption doesn't work so well when you have physical access to one end.

HMMMM WVUFCU already did this

[abuthemagician]

West Virgina United Credit Union already has this app deployed...

iFraud

[iveygman]

Check fraud? Yep, there's an app for that. Need to know how to plead for a lesser sentence? There's an app for that too. Only on the iPhone 3GS.

Been waiting for something like this from USAA

[spagthorpe]

USAA already lets customers deposit checks by scanning them on their computers. Has for years. Very nice feature....if you have a scanner. Now that I'm only using a netbook, I don't have that luxury now.

USAA was also very quick to embrace the iPhone, and came out with a very nice dedicated app a while ago. In addition to letting you check balances, transfer funds and pay bills, it has a ATM locator (location based app), accident checklist with notepad, loan calculator, roadside assistance button (also location based), rental car locator, insurance card access, etc. Someone there is clearly thinking about things. It doesn't surprise me at all they are pushing the envelope a bit.

Re:Been waiting for something like this from USAA

[Red Flayer]

USAA already lets customers deposit checks by scanning them on their computers. Has for years. Very nice feature....if you have a scanner. Now that I'm only using a netbook, I don't have that luxury now.

Take picture with cellphone.
Email to yourself.
Convert image to required format (jpg? pdf? tif?).
Send to USAA.

Not sure if this would satisfy their requirements... But I've been doing this for docs when I'm on the road without access to a scanner for a few years now. It's a little sloppy (hard to get proper perspective, distance, etc, but it's good for quick-n-dirty "scans").

Re:Been waiting for something like this from USAA

[ajlisows]

This isn't about the USAA or this particular method but it is similar.....

The company I work for has a bank account with Chase Bank where they deposit all of their checks. They announced a "New and Easy way" to get those checks deposited. They sent a special check scanner and we had to register it on their web site and download a Java plugin to make it work. No problems there. It seemed very nice. A few days into it the woman who is responsible for processing the checks had me come over to unjam a check from the scanner. Five minutes later another, and then another....

We contacted the bank and described the problem. They said it must be a bad scanner and sent a new one (At which point we had to go through this un-registration/registration process.) Not ten checks into the new scanner, it jammed again. I tried doing the check feeding in case the woman doing the scanning was somehow screwing something up. Same result. I called and talked to them to see if we could get a different model scanner. No way. That is the scanner they use. Weeks and an additional two scanners later, the company gave up and started doing whatever it is they did before.

Taking a picture of the check would probably work ok, but using a standard scanner would really be preferred as they process a lot of checks. I could see the IPHONE picture method running into problems with poor lighting/excess lighting causing people to constantly have to resubmit checks due to legibility issues. A scanner is going to be more consistent in the quality of the image....I would think.

Re:Been waiting for something like this from USAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, those scanners suck ass.

Not all sales are performed at establishments

[tepples]

Nothing erks me more that "cash only" establishments. If you are too cheap to buy a card reader than you should take my cheque. Cash is for crooks and tax evaders.

Not all sales are performed at "establishments". For instance, an individual holding a yard sale might not make enough to cover the cost of a merchant account and terminal.

USAA has different customer needs.

[bigattichouse]

I'm a USAA member, and I know for a fact that many USAA members have needs above and beyond a "normal bank" customer. Imagine trying to buy a new car in Florida when you are deployed to Iraq. Think of how difficult it is to have both of your signatures on one sheet of paper... its not a big example, but it is the kind of thing you run into. Think about this, I once worked in an on-base video rental store - we had a guy rent a movie and then get orders that night to deploy... the computer just kept racking up late fees, even automatically reporting to his CO (also deployed) - we cleared it up after a month or two, once someone noticed. Military situations are just plain different.

Re:USAA has different customer needs.

[Mishotaki]

Think about this, I once worked in an on-base video rental store - we had a guy rent a movie and then get orders that night to deploy... the computer just kept racking up late fees, even automatically reporting to his CO (also deployed) - we cleared it up after a month or two, once someone noticed.

Military situations are just plain different.

Wait! YOU paid for someone else's late fees?!?!?!?!

That's IT! I'm enrolling!

I can think of one problem

[furby076]

You deposit a check using this method
You lose the check (normally not a big deal)
Person contests every writing you the check
Now you can't prove the person wrote you a check

People lose things all the time. There are dishonest people who will try and welsh on funds they are supposed to pay. Couple that with the billions of transactions that happen on any given year and you get a recipe for some problems.

This new method should include the option/requirement to scan the check in.

Re:I can think of one problem

[cdrguru]

Uh, once the check is scanned, the life of the paper document is over. Nobody, ever, is going to want to see the "original" again.

Today, all checks are scanned and are often scanned at the point where they are deposited. Businesses that deal with a lot of checks can get their very own check scanner dor their business. Then they no longer take checks to the bank, ever.

We moved to this system a few years ago. Nobody is reading magnetic ink on the checks anymore.

Re:I can think of one problem

[Ksevio]

I think having pictures of both sides of the check in question would be sufficient proof for the bank.

Nothing really new here

[MojoRilla]

USAA already allowed check deposits by scanner, so this really isn't anything new. But mix anything with IPhone and it makes the Slashdot homepage. Sigh.

Re:Nothing really new here

[happy_place]

Yep. My wife uses this feature regularly. They have controls on the system, like you can't deposit more than a certain amount or number of checks per day, but it works great, and is a nice feature. Well... assuming that it isn't scammed by some evil hackerish type person.

Much like Itchy and Scratchy Land,

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no way that this system could possib-lie go wrong.

Can you explain how that works in the UK?

[hellfire]

My bank here has a link to a number of companies many of which are companies that I have bills with. I can put in a "bill" to my bank and it will retrieve the bill and when I prompt the system to do so it will submit a payment electronically, free of charge. It might take a couple days, but it takes less than a check in the mail. If the company I send the payment to doesn't have a link to my bank, my system automatically simply cuts a paper check for me.

How does the UK system differ?

Re:Can you explain how that works in the UK?

[Albanach]

How does the UK system differ?

Almost every customer bill in the UK is paid by Direct Debit. The organisation automatically draws the money straight from your bank account. I know some firms in the US will do this, but the UK version has some important safeguards, absent from the US system.

For variable amounts, (like your electricity bill) the organisation has to give you fourteen days notice before making the deduction from your account.

You can cancel the Direct Debit at any time.

Banks vet organisations heavily before they are allowed to initiate Direct Debits. I've been through this process, and it is quite a thorough auditing.

Customers are protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee. Every bank that allows customers to have Direct Debits has to adhere to this. In effect it says if the organisation made a mistake, debiting the wrong amount, or on the wrong date, you tell the bank and the bank will immediately refund the money plus any charges incurred as a result, recouping from the company.

It's this guarantee that has made it so successful, for customers who don't have to worry about making payments, it all happens automatically. And for companies the big advantage is cost. To collect a direct debit costs pennies and the system can be entirely automated. The savings in bank charges are substantial and in staff time are enourmous.

If you move to a different bank, you need to sign one form and all your direct debits should be moved to your new account. You don't need to contact any of your suppliers.

Re:Can you explain how that works in the UK?

[Richy_T]

These are fairly important differences. In the UK, I had direct debits set up for all my bills but since moving to the States, I pay all my bills manually even though I'm occasionally late and incur late fees. Basically when you set up automatic payments here, you're giving the company full access to your account and if they overcharge or empty your account, the bank is under no obligation to rectify the situation and there's no real mechanism in place to "Cancel" the access. It's a potential nightmare.

Another thing that's a bit of a culture shock moving here is the size of the late fees and how quickly they're willing to cut off your utilities.

Re:Can you explain how that works in the UK?

[Inda]

I moved to a new bank and signed that "one form". Within days all my creditors sent nice "thank you for updating your details" letters. It's a great system.

cheques give you freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Im a European and I admire Americans for using cheques. Here cheques are seen with suspicion and most people dont accept them. But cheques are good because they give you independence and freedom. Credit cards and electronic transactions make you a slave.

Re:cheques give you freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're on the way-back train here already, how about asking for payment in sheep? That way you cut out the slavery of having to go to the store to buy dinner, you have it right there in your arms!

Way to Fail Reading

[SBrach]

Did you try to read the entire summary in under 1 second or something.

Does it work for cash too?

[kindbud]

Can I take a picture of my bills to deposit them?

Checks? Yeah, to the govt

[russotto]

The last two checks I wrote (and the only two in some time) were to municipal taxing authorities. The State finally got around to being able to do ACHs recently, and the IRS has been able to take your money that way for a while (as opposed to the more traditional way of sending goons over to take your kids' piggybanks).

Some companies (like my property management company) which really ought to be able to do better still take only paper checks. I enter the payment into my electronic bill paying application. My service company then writes a check out and mails it to them. They physically deposit into their bank... their bank then images it, electronically clears it, and destroys the paper copy. Pretty silly, when I know they could arrange for a direct transfer. Probably their bank charges them such outrageous fees for doing it that it's cheaper for them to hire someone to carry real checks to the bank.

Note that in the US, with "Check 21", you're not guaranteed to get your original cleared check back in any case.

They're working on it

[PCM2]

I use Bank of America's online banking system, which has a facility for electronic payment of bills. As a result, I don't write checks for any of my monthly bills anymore (which essentially means I don't use checks at all).

Bank of America will allow you to set up any mailing address for automatic payment, so I can even use it to pay my landlord (who doesn't have his own arrangement with the bank like most utilities do). The caveat is that it takes 5-7 days for the payment to be processed into his account, because as far as I am aware, what Bank of America actually does is print up a check and mail it to him. :-S But at least I don't have to pay for the stamp.

My landlord once told me that Bank of America used to let people do automatic wire transfers into each others accounts, but they eventually suspended that service. Neither of us knows why.

Re:They're working on it

[SBrach]

They haven't suspended it for me.

Some Clarification

[doulos05]

As has been mentioned several times, this is nothing new. I use this all the time because it saves me trouble. Don't know about the iPhone app, but there is some verification in that you have to enter the amount to deposit. And really, the bank doesn't hold on to a check after you've deposited it anyway. They scan it, store it under your account. But I've asked my banks for copies of checks deposited before, they gave me a printout. All they've done is ask you to scan it for them. Quite frankly, the convenience of

• being able to access my money from any ATM in the world without fees
• their awesome insurance rates (I pay less to insure my wife and I are two cars we don't fully own yet than my friends the same age pay to insure themselves on a single car that they do own, and we live 3 blocks from each other)
• world-class customer service (my mom rear-ended someone, her fault, halfway across the US from home, USAA got her home, wrote out all the checks, handled all the claims, and just sent her a sheet of paper to sign and fax back along with a check less the deductible for the vehicle)
• and numerous other benefits

more than compensates for them making me do that small portion of their job for them so I can access my money same-day rather than in 3 to 14 business days.

From the write-up:

[rickb928]

"and the bank suggests voiding the check and filing or discarding it"

Dumb as a blade of grass. Void the check, void the deposit, smart.

I am *so* in the wrong business.

No you are wrong

[Archfeld]

Doing financial business in bits and bytes is ridiculously simple and easy, the cost is nearly nill, the banks are just robbing folks as usual. I worked for several years in a Global Funds Transfer department for a huge bank. GFT technology is OLD OLD OLD, think like telegraph/fax old, that is why it works to anywhere, in Mexico, or say Nigeria, or that little village in Tanzania. You just got screwed because the big banks OWN all the wires, and they have divided up the playing field so they seem to compete but don't really do so...

Right...

[my_left_nut]

Identity Theft - there's an app for that.

In Soviet Russia!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, contraband iPhone deposits YOU, into gulag!

Err, Umm, Security?

[holophrastic]

So, cheques: a piece of paper laced with security techniques to dodge copying/photographing/duplicating/forging is going to be accepted in photographed form? That seems more than idiotic.

Deposit Functionality Requires Location

[duplo1]

Interesting. I'm a USAA customer and I just loaded up the app. For security-purposes, it seems that the application requires the phone's location before it will allow a user to deposit a check. Presumably this is to combat fraud, such as detect a user in Seattle depositing a check and then the same user in Vienna attempting to deposit a check 10 minutes later. When the window asking whether I wanted to let it use my location popped up, I hit cancel and it did not let me go any further with the deposit. Unfortunately, I don't have any checks handy that I need to deposit, but I can't wait to test this out.

Well duh

[emmafreester]

I'm surprised by how much of a stir this story is creating. I've used USAA for almost 5 years now and the whole time they've had a "Deposit@Home" javascript that allowed you to scan your check and deposit it immediately the same way. It's the quickest and most convenient way to do it, considering that USAA is an internet-only bank. They're also pretty much the best bank in the world...ATM fee rebates, a decent web interface, and scanning (or sending them in snail-mail in postage paid free deposit envelopes) deposits? What more could you ask for?

Re:Checks? Yeah, to the govt

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you get what's called and IRD which replaces it. Paper checks == teh evil.

Check processing is actually a cool space to be in for IT, as long as you don't have to deal with IBM.

Anyone else think that this was....

[colin_s_guthrie]

... an iPhone version of Rate-my-Poo?

"Checks" indeed. Grow up NA - the word is Cheques!

What's $0.35 plus 2% on a $4 transaction?

[Overzeetop]

By my math, that's at the top end of his estimate. Because a lot of transactions are small (now that CC companies forbid minimum charges in their TOS), the per-transaction fees often chraged - esp to small merchants - make the percentage large.