Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports
Donald Knuth pioneered the idea of bounties for bug reports many years
ago. He has now announced,
in classic Knuthian style, that he can no longer write checks for these
reports because he's tired of being ripped off. "It turns out that
only 9 of the first 275 checks that I've sent out since the beginning of
2006 have actually been cashed. The others have apparently been cached. So
this change in policy will probably not affect too many people. On the
other hand, I don't like to renege on promises, so I shall do my best to
find a suitable way to send money to anyone who really prefers legal
tender."
(Log in to post comments)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 19:50 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Only Knuth would call this being ripped off.
Oops. Scratch that. Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:01 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Knuth is not concerned that people didn't cash his checks. He's concerned that people read his bank account number from all of those framed checks and have committed identity fraud on Knuth.Gee, I wonder if I can get a check from Bruce Schneiner?
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:01 UTC (Thu) by mwspitzer (guest, #53251) [Link]
You should read the link before you comment. He doesn't accuse the people he's sent checks to of ripping him off. He's worried about checks in general because of how easy it now is to commit fraud with only an account and routing number.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:04 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
Yep. Got it. I guess we need a zero-knowledge proof on every printed check to make the system keep working. It would have to be a cryptographic hash of the check number (to prevent reuse) and some secret number.
no more checks. Posted Oct 30, 2008 21:42 UTC (Thu) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] ORyou could consider just stop using checks, like Europe did in the 80's. (I'm sorry but every time Americans talk about checks it makes me chuckle - all in an amicable way of course.)
no more checks. Posted Oct 30, 2008 22:52 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
...
because we all know how secure credit and debit cards are. Nobody ever gets ripped of using those.
no more checks. Posted Oct 30, 2008 23:01 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
With credit cards at least the only people who get ripped off are the
banks: if you contest a transaction the banks are required to repay you: if it was legitimate the merchant and you can then sort it out among yourselves.
This is enforced by legislation in the UK: isn't something like that true
no more checks. Posted Oct 30, 2008 23:37 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
If somebody scams me by writing a fradulant (which i haven't used in years, btw) they bank is legally obligated to pay me back for the full amount. Also they are obligated to detect check fraud.
It's no different from credit cards in this respect.
no more checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 7:09 UTC (Fri) by lyndon (guest, #4007) [Link]
The difference (at least in the UK - perhaps it's different in the US) is in where the burden of proof lies. With a credit card transaction, if I challenge it the card company is required to refund me, and then has to prove that the transaction was legitimate. With a cheque, I have to prove that the transaction was fraudulent before the money will be returned.
no more checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 10:59 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Wow, finally a reason to get a credit card rather than relying on debit cards. I will apply soon (tho' now is hardly the optimal time to make an application).
no more checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 19:32 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I got my credit card specifically so I could pay for my LWN
subscription :)
no more checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 23:53 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] With credit cards at least the only people who get ripped off are the banks: if you contest a transaction the banks are required to repay you: if it was legitimate the merchant and you can then sort it out among yourselves.Maybe they do things differently in your perception but the Bank doesn't eat anything. They simply pass that fraud onto the consumers as a higher percentage take of every transaction. As a result the prices of everything increase to compensate for the higher percentage of the transaction the credit card companies take. Where credit/debit is accepted prices are inflated anywhere from 1.65% to ~3.5% depending on the fraud rate of the business type. This is the tax you pay every transaction you make to cover fraud. The best part is that economically it's not worth it for the bank to even consider fraud that is less than 5 digits. So the fraud is by default accepted and just passed on to the consumers. If you want to know how much you pay for credit card fraud take at a minimum 1.65% of all your consumer spending and that's what you paid to cover the fraud of others.
no more checks. Posted Nov 1, 2008 12:56 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yeah. It's called an insurance scheme. Current accounts in the UK work
sort of in the opposite way (the few who go overdrawn pay to cover the costs of running the many apparently for free). There are arguments for and against both ways of operating.
This is way off topic for LWN now, anyway.
not quite that simple Posted Nov 2, 2008 12:03 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
This is still an oversimplification. The bank cannot arbitrarily set these parameters. So if fraud exceeds the level at which the bank can raise fees, the bank eats the loss. On the other hand if fraud falls, but the bank is able to maintain the fees then the bank profits. As a result the bank has a significant interest in finding cost-effective ways to reduce fraud. Of course as with any capitalist endeavour the existence of a profit motive is neither necessary not sufficient for the work to get done, but it's a good start.
Further it's an oversimplification from the customer & business's point of view. Such arguments often pretend that cash business is free - but I assure you it is not. Even ignoring simple counterfeiting, running a cash-heavy business means everything from higher banking charges to insurance requirements for time lock safes, etc. to reduce robberies. The overhead for cash transactions could thus be as high or even higher than credit card fees. If you want to compare costs for paper checks rather than cash, it becomes more obviously tilted, modern banks want nothing to do with a business that generates labour-intensive data entry and you're still subject to fraud. So you will pay a high fee either per month or per transaction for that service, and some of the checks will bounce, leaving you covering the difference. As a result most businesses in my area won't take a check, of any kind, for any amount.
no more checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 10:05 UTC (Fri) by simonckenyon (guest, #41836) [Link]
what?
perhaps you don't live in europe or at least live in a different europe to me :-)
no more cheques, erm, checks. Posted Oct 31, 2008 13:25 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
We haven't forgotten about the United Kingdom! Can you still pay by cheque (with a guarantee card!) in the supermarket in the UK? Those were the days!
checks still used, and not required for bank account fraud Posted Nov 1, 2008 8:07 UTC (Sat) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
Not all countries in Europe stopped using cheques (which is how the UK spells checks btw) - in the UK, their use is certainly declining a lot given the rise of debit cards, but many people still use them to pay tradesmen and for paying friends/family back for small debts. They are commonly used by older people who never got used to using a PIN. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque
In any case, the excellent blog posting at http://perimetergrid.com/wp/2008/01/01/checks-the-most-da... (which Knuth referenced about cheque/check fraud) makes it clear that the physical cheque is not the only vulnerability - simply quoting the sort code (aka routing code) and account number lets you withdraw money from anyone's account via an 'demand draft' (not sure of the UK equivalent but I've heard this is possible). I don't have a good link on the status in UK and rest of Europe, but generally the US inter-bank payment systems seems astonishingly primitive, with physical checks flowing between banks even when the initiator made an electronic payment request!
Demand draft fraud has been a problem since 1996 at least but appears much easy in the US due to websites that let you create them online. See http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/ddraft.shtm for a speech from 1996.
However, the UK's electronic equivalent, direct debit fraud, is also incredibly easy - account numbers are not checked against the account name so it's mostly used to get goods like mobile phones while setting up a direct debit from another account.
The only real defence appears to be to keep a limited amount of money in your cheque account (aka checking account), and to keep your bank account number as secret as your banking password. This means never writing cheques/checks, and makes it had to set up regular demand drafts / direct debits.
checks still used, and not required for bank account fraud Posted Nov 2, 2008 11:26 UTC (Sun) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] And note that the consumer does not directly pay the costs of a fraudulent Direct Debit. The Direct Debit Guarantee means that you, as an individual consumer, can tell your bank that any given debit is in error, and get a full and immediate refund. In turn, your bank can pull the money back from the receiving bank - if you actually want to accept Direct Debits, you go through a long, involved process with your merchant bank, in which you have to convince them that you're genuine, and that you have processes in place to tackle fraud. You also have to convince your bank that if they do find themselves paying out on the Direct Debit Guarantee, they will not have to hassle you to get the money back. Remember that from the banks' point of view, Direct Debit is an incredibly efficient way to handle payments - they need to keep consumer confidence in it high, as it's a pain to deal with lots and lots of individual bank transfers, card payments or cheques, compared to a single DD batch transaction. As a result, the only pain you see as a consumer from DD fraud is the one-off cost of getting a fraudulent debit refunded, and whatever charge for fraud is made by the companies you deal with.
no more checks. Posted Nov 6, 2008 8:53 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
I remember checks. My grandmother used to have them when I was real tiny. Even she has stopped using them several dozen years ago.
For paying in shops we use cash, or debit-cards, or credit-cards.
For paying bills, we use electronic invoices, or in the case of recurring bills from trusted parties set up automatic payment with a limit.
For transfering money to other people I use cash for small sums, or simply transfer the money to their account for larger sums. This costs zero, and the money is immediately accessible to them. It works abroad too for all of Europe atleast, though in that case it takes 2-3 days before the money becomes available for the recipient.
What would be the advantage of using checks for anything ?
no more checks. Posted Nov 6, 2008 23:02 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
Er, most shops in Britain have only recently (ie. within the last year) announced that they will no longer accept guaranteed cheques as payment. Personal, non-guaranteed cheques are still used on a regular basis.
no more checks. Posted Nov 6, 2008 23:04 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
(Sorry, posted before I noticed the plethora of other comments saying exactly the same thing...)
no more checks. Posted Nov 7, 2008 9:10 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
But that's not the point -- most people don't cache the cheque from Don, they frame it and hang it on their office wall. I did that with the first one myself, when I got it more than two decades ago. (Later, I replaced it with photos from Don's and Jill's visits to us -- now, how's that for bragging... ;-))
Actually, I know only two persons who really cached cheques from Don, and that's just because they got more than a dozen of them. In that light, Don's decision to write out reward cheques to a fictional bank on an alien plant in the future is pure genius, but what else would one expect from him.
no more checks. Posted Nov 7, 2008 13:24 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Not trying to be an arse here, but rather trying to increase your enjoyment of Knuth's writing. You've missed the pun on 'cashed':
cashed: To have redeemed some promissory note, such as a cheque, for its monetary value.
cached: To have added something to some store (cache).
no more checks. Posted Nov 7, 2008 13:39 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
Yeah, you're right. Quite obvious that I'm not a native English speaker, isn't it?
Greetings from Germany -- Joachim
no more checks. Posted Nov 7, 2008 14:19 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] It was a subtle pun, I bet some native speakers missed it too ;)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:32 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] He's not just worried; he says that it's already happened to him (that thieves have tried to raid his checking account), three times.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:08 UTC (Thu) by klbarrus (subscriber, #20332) [Link]
I thought most the people saving the checks just wanted a souvenir (of sorts!). I can't believe he's a victim of identity fraud through this, that is terrible.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 10:03 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Maybe he should just send out signed "Thank you for finding a bug in TeX" notes. People could stick those on their wall.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 16:58 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
He should probably send out two items: a cashier's check for the money without either his financial information or any distinctive characteristics, and a "check" suitable for framing with a random number (or a hash of the bug report) as the financial information (and no actual bank name).
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 3, 2008 15:47 UTC (Mon) by werth1 (subscriber, #48435) [Link]
My guess is that some people scanned their cheques and others used the info to withdraw money.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:30 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
I can't believe the financial system has such poor security. How can they justify this?
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:39 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
By being America.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 23:15 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
don't be a ass.
What, fraud doesn't happen in China or Africa or Europe? Or.. maybe you just don't talk about it and have a media concentrates on the negative nature American politics to distract the public from their own issues.
-----------
The thing is it's cost effectiveness. Banks and financial institutions could do a lot more to stamp out fraud to a certain extent. They couldn't stop it, but they could take more steps to reduce it.
But at what cost? Everything you do costs money and costs people's time and effort and this means lost time and lost business opportunities. So you have to weigh in how much effort you want to put into eliminating fraud.
The way things are now the costs of fraud do not justify doing anything to stomp it out. Like DRM you can put all sorts of money and effort to try to make the system 'perfect', but you simply won't be able to do that. Instead you just whittle down at the problem and try to reduce it. Every step you take costs money and takes a smaller percentage of crime down, up to the point were you spend billions and billions of dollars on infrastructure changes and end up maybe having a 0.1% positive impact.
-------------------------------------
So right now the amount of credit card fraud and loan fraud is small enough that it's only really a problem in the public's imagination. If you tried to stop it all the costs would far outstrip any sort of positive benefit.
(and remember any sort of negative impact your credit gets, it's just temporary)
So it's better to just let the banks absorb the costs of fraud and chalk it up to the costs of doing business. If your a victim of credit card fraud or check fraud then the banks are obligated to refund you 100% if you report it quick enough (I forget how quickly you have to do it, but it's measured in months). A PITA to be sure, but so is lots of other stuff.
It's just your job to look out for it. It's one of the costs of living in a (mostly) free society. As individuals there are a lot you can do to protect yourself, and it's your job to look out for yourself and your interest's.. not the government's.
---------------------
For the government's part:
From the Federal law level...
You can put yourself on 'fraud alert' and as long as you constantly put yourself on fraud alert then it can prevent and reduce the effects of criminal activity. It's only for a short time frame, but it's cheap, and you can do it over and over again.
From the State law level...
Also you can a put a freeze on your credit. Which means that in order to get approved for a loan or any other form of credit the people trying to issue the credit are forced to contact you personally and get approval before examining your credit. This effectively prevents people from trying to take out credit cards, bank loans, mortagages, or any other things like that. This is very cheap, usually, and the freeze lasts for a much longer amount of time then a fraud alert.
There are corporations you can pay to help you with this so you don't have to remember to keep renewing your fraud alerts and credit freezes.
---------------------------
See also: 'The War on Drugs' for a example when people blindly go about trying to do what they think is good without weighing the actual costs in any rational manner.
---------------------------
Imagine why when we have a laptop it is not encased in a welded steal case, with it's motherboard/ram/cpu/harddrive encased in a solid lump of epoxy, which requires finger prints, a key card, a sample of your cells for DNA analysis, and which self-destructs in a poof of blue smoke if you enter your password incorrectly more then 3 times.
That would be _very_ secure, right? But it would still be insane.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 0:16 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I have no point to make other than to applaud the wonderfully apropos
typo 'welded steal case'.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 7:56 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] What, fraud doesn't happen in China or Africa or Europe?Not check fraud. Checks are only used for big transactions, and are normally endorsed by a bank. Or.. maybe you just don't talk about it and have a media concentrates on the negative nature American politics to distract the public from their own issues.Maybe fraud here in Europe is so negligible there is no point talking about it. At least in my bank it is. We seldom hear about American fraud except in American movies, I assure you.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 17:40 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Since cheques have been retired from Europe, it is either wire or paypal here. Which are less susceptible to fraud, since you have a hard time introducing a MITM transaction as a third party. (So stolen passwords are your problem.)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 21:19 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
Is this a eurozone thing? I still use cheques from time to time (in the UK). I have never heard of anyone being able to withdraw money simply by having my bank account number, even though this seems to be a genuine risk in the US. They can put money in using it, but taking it out is harder. It is true that signatures are just about never checked though.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 21:59 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The written parts of cheques are often rarely checked. I've often found
cheques others pay in taking a different amount out of my account than expected, simply because they misread the numeric amount part. One wonders what the other parts are *there* for, if they're not checked... probably pure historical inertia.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 2, 2008 13:21 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
With no other information they can generate a Direct Debit which will allow them to use your bank details to transfer money to large trustworthy institutions like utility companies, bigger charities, other banks and so on. Look at a Direct Debit form, see it just wants your basic account details, the same you'd give to someone making a transfer in your favour?
The Direct Debit is technically at no risk to you (assuming you spot it) because the bank guarantees to revert any erroneous or fraudulent transaction, as well as any lost interest or bank charge for e.g. going overdrawn. I've had to invoke this guarantee once and I was very satisfied with the response. However some people don't read their bank statements and so they would never notice the debits were going out of their account.
Since Direct Debit target accounts are controlled by large institutions they aren't practical for stealing money directly, but can be used as part of another fraud - e.g. a fraudster buys a mobile telephone on contract, the phone will "cost" $50 but it's valued at more like $500. The company expects to make the money back on the contract, but he's given them Direct Debit details for Knuth's account. Eventually Knuth notices, and gets his money back, but meanwhile the fraudster has a $500 phone to sell. Because the phones are issued by salesmen working on commission there's not necessarily any incentive for them to properly enforce identity checks or other anti-fraud measures.
You can also use the same details to generate a counterfeit cheque. Simply increment the cheque number field and fix the check digit using the industry's published scheme, and you have another valid cheque on which you can write any amount and forge Knuth's signature. Once again, Knuth isn't responsible for the resulting debit, but this time it's more practical for the fraudster to escape with cash. As cheques are phased out around the world this type of fraud should decrease, because remaining cheques will be inspected more closely.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 2, 2008 18:30 UTC (Sun) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
>e.g. a fraudster buys a mobile telephone on contract, the phone will "cost" $50 but it's valued at more like $500.
What is much more shocking than all this fraudulent-debit-by-company is that some stores and hotels in Germany (or is it my card's chip?) allows debiting from the ATM card without requiring the PIN if the amount is <= 50.
Justification? Easy: It works. Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:43 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
except when it doesn't.
The system never was foolproof; in fact, in the days before the internet, check security was worse: that routing number sent the physical check someplace. By the time the "bad check" reply came back, the thief was long gone.
These days, you at least need a valid number combo; on the other hand, obtaining one is easier.
I suspect that these pieces of paper will die a natural death sooner or later. In parts of Europe this has already happened, a few years ago in fact: there you can no longer pay for your groceries by writing a check.
Attack vectors on the banking and credit cards which replace them are a different topic. :-P
Justification? Easy: It works. Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:49 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
I don't expect foolproof by any means. I do expect something better than the equivalent of plaintext passwords which all default to 'password' and are printed on post-its attached to every terminal.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:43 UTC (Thu) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]
I wonder if Knuth would be receptive to idea of sending some sort of nicely printed certificate in lieu of the cash. It seems that finding a TeX bug is noteworthy enough that people like to frame the proof.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 21:52 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] For goodness's sake, all this stuff is covered in what Knuth wrote! (In fact Knuth has pre-emptively answered pretty much every question on this comment thread in that article.) As he says:After painful deliberation I've come up with a new plan, which I hope will be acceptable to all concerned, and perhaps even welcomed as an improvement. Instead of rewarding heroic bug-finders with dollars, I shall henceforth award brownie points, otherwise known as hexadecimal dollars (0x$). From now on it will be kudos, not escudos.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 5:22 UTC (Fri) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
Like on Slashdot, people apparently don't read the article anymore before commenting...
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 7:56 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I can understand that with normal articles, but this is by *Knuth*. It's
*guaranteed* to be wonderfully written... skipping reading Knuth is, like, sacrilege, or something.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 11:07 UTC (Fri) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]
Unlike on Slashdot, we don't expect the summary to be misleading!
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 20:56 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
What are these "checks" he talks about? Surely not the archaic and obsolete method of transferring money from one party to the other?
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 21:56 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
My understanding is that they still use them in the US.
I've used them for exactly three purposes in my entire life:
- paying large sums to my family (direct bank transfers are really
- putting down a deposit on my house (a one-off: no idea why they
- paying the cleaners (it means I can just leave the cheque on the table
For everything else, it's cash, direct debit, or credit cards. Cheques are
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 23:42 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> My understanding is that they still use them in the US.
Some people do because they feel more comfortable. They have a good understanding of how the checking system works, and know it's pitfalls and what to avoid. (ie: signing blank checks and leaving them places were people can steal them). Credit cards are more mysterious and they require extra fees to be used.. most banks have no charges for using or issuing checks (unless you get special prints with kitties on them or whatnot).
Mostly older folks.
Most people don't use checks for anything other then what your describing. That and paying local municipalities who don't have direct account withdrawl programs yet.
----------------------
Also I am a bit curious how people do personal person-to-person money transactions in Europe with credit cards. ;)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 0:21 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Direct person-to-person stuff is done via direct bank transfers, cash, or,
yes, cheques. I think this (and single-person very-small-business stuff) is the last refuge of cheques in the UK: it may be even more limited elsewhere in the EU.
The vanishing of cheques from high street shops is a recent thing: in the
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 1:51 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Same thing here.
All fast food places will not accept checks at all. Most grocery stores and other places treat your check the same as a debit card. You hand them the check, they scan it using the machine, it's approved and your handed it back. Most of the time they couldn't give a shit less if you signed it or not.
Same system. It's much more accurate to look at checks as single-use bank cards nowadays.
The only significant difference between checks and bank cards nowadays is that one is a piece of paper and you can mail it and the other is made from plastic.
------------------
Nobody I know does direct deposit person to person however.
--------------------------------------
Oh, and keep in mind that the only reason why checks are dangerous is because they provide routing information and checking account number on the check.
No crook in their right mind walks (many are batshit insane, however so they try it anyways) into a bank and tries to cash a check they have made with a forged signature or they try to inflate the amount on the front of the check. Instead they use the routing and account number as part of a scam to attempt to do a bank transfer over the phone.
This is common for people to do this for retired and older folks. They'll call them up and try to get the account information and use that to try to extract money from their checking or savings accounts.
All in all there is really only a small difference in the level of security provided by a bank card over a signed check in the amount of fraud that can occur. There are a few cons that can be opened up by checks like confidence scams were one party convinces the other to sign a blank check.. but that's going to be rare.
The real cost of checks involve people trying to use their own account and their own checks to try to do small-time scams like floating checks (which is virtually impossible to do nowadays with any success), trying out timing attacks on banks (floating checks in order to artificially inflate the amount of money recorded in the account and then withdrawing all of it at once) or purposely writing bad checks in order to avoid having their lights turned off or buy something they can't afford.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 12:47 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> No crook in their right mind walks (many are batshit insane, however
> so they try it anyways) into a bank and tries to cash a check they > have made with a forged signature
I was immediately reminded of this story:
QUOTE:
Texas man tries to cash $360bn cheque
Forth Worth police earlier this week slapped the cuffs on a 21-year-old music biz wannabe who decided the best way to raise some venture capital was to cash a dodgy cheque for $360bn, NBC 5 reports.
Charles Ray Fuller, of Crowley, made his move at a branch of Chase Bank with said cheque made out to "Fulla Comp and Entertainment" - the record company he planned to start. However, the wheels quickly came off the plan when the bank unsuprisingly decided to ring the person who'd apparently issued the cheque - one Paula Prettyman - to see if it was legit.
Prettyman, it turned out, was the mother of Fuller's girlfriend, Andrea Greer, and she insisted the master fraudster was "not authorised to take or cash the check".
Cue cop intervention, who arrested Fuller on suspicion of fraud, as well as unlawfully carrying a weapon and marijuana possession since he'd decided to make his play while packing a pistol and a small amount of weed.
Ms Greer said of her boyfriend: "I wouldn't picture him doing something that stupid, I mean, hurting me and my family. I didn't think he'd do this, something this dumb. I think it shocked everybody that knew him."
Greer's grandmother Sharon Laird added to the mass disbelief with: "I said, 'Do what? Is he crazy? We were just in awe."
Laird concluded by noting that if her family did indeed have $360bn, she wouldn't be talking to NBC 5, but rather "somewhere drinking margaritas".
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 5:26 UTC (Fri) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link] Here in UK, online bank transfer is becoming pretty ubiquitous. This tends to be free of any charge (at least at the amounts I move about), very easy, and very fast (used to be instant to transfer to/from people who use the same bank as me, 3 working days otherwise, but recent changes means sending money across banks within major banking networks is usually instant, although we're told "could be up to two hours"). Clients will often pay me for development work by bank transfer, and money is moved around friends 'n family using the same (scenarios like "does anybody have £10 cash on them to pay for pizza and I'll drop it into your account, save me going out to cash point" becoming increasingly common).
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 7:28 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
Just a note: same in Germany, almost 100% direct bank transfers, for
paying bills, for private stuff. In shops you either use cash, EC card (is that the same as a "debit" card ?) or credit card (I think in this order). Paper checks are really really rare.
Alex
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 12:55 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
Yes, maestro (there is no EC any more) is pretty much the same as debit card, though clearly using a different technical implementation.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 14:05 UTC (Fri) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link]
I still use plain V(errechnungs)-Schecks for paying
the parcel services delivering some "cash on delivery" things. I don't go for having large summs in the house and the checks are taken without fail.
MACC
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 15:10 UTC (Fri) by bobort (guest, #5019) [Link]
Checks are still very common in north america because the system here for electronic account-to-account transfers is terrible. I have accounts at two banks. To send money from one to the other, I can do a "wire transfer", which takes about a week to complete (seriously!) and costs a total of $90 in fees at both ends. Or I can mail a check, which is sometimes _faster_ than a wire transfer (almost never slower), and costs about 1% as much.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 1, 2008 4:11 UTC (Sat) by set (guest, #4788) [Link]
Odd. The last time I did a wire transfer was about 7 years ago.
I only did it because I wanted the money to be there the next day (it was) and it cost me $10. One of my current banks advertises a $15 rate for outgoing wires, and $0 for incoming. They also have free online transfers between accounts advertised on the fee schedule, but I've never tried it. Im here in America.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 7, 2008 9:21 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
> Also I am a bit curious how people do personal person-to-person money
> transactions in Europe with credit cards. ;)
They don't.
One uses either bank transfers, when initiated by the person who sends the money. Dirt cheap in Continental Europe.
Or one uses direct debit, when initiated by the person who shall get the money. It can be cancelled without any reason by the payer for 8 weeks after the draft. Available to anybody, not just credit card business associates. It's used a lot in small one-person shops who can't afford the 5% charges that credit companies take from small shops.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 22:03 UTC (Thu) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]
I thought he were going on about not looking at bug reports any more until
I realised they can't spell cheque.. ;-)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 22:39 UTC (Thu) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032) [Link]
I vaguely remember my father using checks way back when you didn't just pay everything by bank card. Then I came to North America to find this quaint practice still in wide use. Anyway, I have never been able to find out why in the age of electronic communication people there still insist on sending around small slips of paper with some numbers scribbled on them.
That and credit cards, where all you need to know to do incredible damage is a bunch of easiy stolen digits.
Both obviously payment methods designed with security in mind.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 22:46 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
We still insist on using the old British Imperial system of weights and measures, too. Don't ask me why. My best guess is that the US is inhabited by large numbers of people who cling to obsolete traditions just because they fear change.
weights and measures Posted Nov 2, 2008 15:07 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Actually your system isn't the British Imperial system. Each country had its own traditional weights and measures, with consolidation really happening only in the 20th century. Its particularly noticeable in liquid measures for the US vs UK systems. A US "gallon" of fuel appeared ridiculously cheap to someone from the UK not only because it was lightly taxed, but also because it was literally almost 20% less liquid. But there are other examples too, The US "ninety-eight pound" weakling is an Imperial "seven stone" weakling where the stone is a unit unheard of in the US.
In the UK the change to "metric" (ie SI and related units) is far from complete. Speed restrictions and distances on roads are still in miles only, as they are on most railways (the high speed route leading to the Channel Tunnel is in kilometres to reduce confusion for drivers). In a pub they're legally required to sell beer in multiples of a third or a half pint, although a shot of spirits must be either 25ml or 35ml with a sign specifying which. And of course ordinary people still use customary units all the time in informal speech, (this happened prior to metric too, the above mentioned "stone" has been illegal for trade purposes for decades, maybe centuries yet persists in popular use)
But yes, the US has a problem with large sub-populations who are highly resistant to change. Hence among other things the continued production of the expensive to manufacture yet almost worthless one dollar note.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 3:17 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
Very simple. In our business we would pay somewhere in the vicinity of $120
per month for the account setup, and a 3-5% charge on every invoice for the privilege of accepting credit cards.
So we don't, and people write us cheques, which cost a small amount per for
On top of that, if a customer charges our invoice to their card, even
Person to person transfers are very expensive and a blame nuisance.
Derek
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 12:57 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
Therein lies the issue, bank transfers are cheap (often free) in Europe, and even across countries in Europe banks cannot charge more than within a country.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 21:28 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
Within the eurozone. Sterling to Euro transfers are still tiresomely expensive (25 quid at my bank which is bad as a yankee wire transfer) - paypal is a much better bet (a service they call 'echeque' for some reason).
Pity we didn't join the euro yet. Maybe one day...
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 30, 2008 23:27 UTC (Thu) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]
I recall a computer scientist commenting that it demonstrated the height of intelligence to receive a cheque from Knuth...and the height of stupidity to cash it! These things are sufficiently prized that almost all recipients frame them.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 11:13 UTC (Fri) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]
And, of course, the market value of those framed checks went way up
today :)
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 10:04 UTC (Fri) by modernjazz (guest, #4185) [Link]
I really doubt that he's had his account numbers stolen from TeX bug reward
checks. I think someone needs to tell him to stop replying to those emails offering to deposit large sums in your banking account, if only you provide them with routing details.
Oh, wait, Knuth doesn't even use email anymore...
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 13:49 UTC (Fri) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link] Looks like the Bank of San Seriffe has a problem converting TeX markup of diacritics to HTML
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Oct 31, 2008 19:36 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Coverting? You're expected to be able to read TeX diacritics more easily
than the rendered format ;}
There are some bugs nobody can find. For everything else, there's PayPal Posted Oct 31, 2008 14:50 UTC (Fri) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link]
Knuth's traditional policy was to double the amount each time. If he's written 275 checks in 3 years, that's a big bite out of book royalties. (Remembering the grain of rice and chessboard, etc.)
There are some bugs nobody can find. For everything else, there's PayPal Posted Oct 31, 2008 16:38 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] This is not bugs in TeX (which he officially declared "bug free" some years back), but bugs in his books (I've got a check for finding a typo in The Art of Computer Programming).
There are some bugs nobody can find. For everything else, there's PayPal Posted Oct 31, 2008 17:27 UTC (Fri) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link]
TeX wasn't the only program under that policy either. But what's the formula for bug payment amounts for the books? Obviously not geometric like the programs?
Never mind Posted Oct 31, 2008 17:29 UTC (Fri) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link] The /. story summary says it's a constant amount. He really ought to switch to PayPal. :)
There are some bugs nobody can find. For everything else, there's PayPal Posted Nov 1, 2008 2:04 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] For programs (METAFONT and TeX, IIRC) the policy was double the amount each year, for books it is a constant "binary dollar" (256 cents).
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 1, 2008 4:49 UTC (Sat) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890) [Link]
I used the Interac Email Transfer that's available in Canada for the first
time earlier this year and was surprised by how well it worked. Cheap bank-to-bank transfers (Well, free for me with the banking package I have), and I setup the security questions required for the receiving party to accept the money. The transfer was issued out of my web banking.
Hopefully this means that cheques will at least go away in Canada.
Tks,
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 2, 2008 21:20 UTC (Sun) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
Why would this make cheques go away? The only people I've ever needed to make up a cheque for are those same people who don't have email. I've written a grand total of 23 checks this decade. Everyone accepts Interac these days, with the exception of every single Chinese Food place in Saskatchewan, for reasons that still elude me to this day.
Knuth: no more checks for bug reports Posted Nov 2, 2008 22:07 UTC (Sun) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890) [Link]
Hmm. Even my grandmother has email at this point. But my old landlord used to require cheques, the small Community Supported Agriculture farm that I used wanted cheques, and the church I belonged to wanted cheques. So I found that I was writing a fair number of them.
I'm vaguely hoping that businesses at least that aren't large enough to get their names in the "Bill Payment" bits with Royal Bank will start to accept Interac email money transfer. And then I won't have to write them anymore.
Tks,
|
|||||||||||||