Have your bank's fraud prevention checks ever helped you?

6 digits are plenty if the bank handle it right, just put in a delay before a third or fourth attempt for that card can be entered, then make the delay longer the more failed attempts accumulate. Even if a 'brute forcer' knows about this it will take years before he get both the number right and the waiting time long enough. As an the extra bonus the person trying will never know which entries were really wrong and which were just rejected by the delay ;-))
Of course the real owner of the card will complain to the bank if it happens by accident, and get the delay cleared.

Thanks, Jakob. Good to know. 

When was this magical time of noble banks with customer interest at heart above all else?  The history books suggest otherwise.

Hello Glis:

I dunno when, exactly, Glis.  But, it was BEFORE the government passed laws that FORCES banks to snitch on their customers..  As proof, I suggest the lure of Cayman banks, for example, is that they DON'T snitch on their customers..

excon

Any real proof?
Pretty sure the lure of Cayman Islands is taxes.
Banks have never had their customers interests first. It's always been about making money off of other peoples money.

Hello again, Glis:

Well, ULTIMATELY, you're right.  The PURPOSE of using a bank that won't snitch on you IS tax avoidance, and maybe even JAIL avoidance too..  

And, I don't disagree about what a banks motives are either..  It just seems like SECRECY is benefit that customers WANT..

excon

Fair enough.  Not trying to be jerk or ride ya'.  Just kinda confused on which side your on over the issue and find the statement counter to a lot of your other state views.  There seems to be something interesting here to me but can't quite get the full scope of  what you're trying to throw down, but I'm kinda interested.

Hello again, Glis:

No problem.. Even when you disagreed, you did it politely..

I'm not sure what you mean...  I don't like the government SNOOPING on me.  I especially don't like it when they REQUIRE the people I do business with to SNITCH on me.  You know, people like my phone company, my email company, the search engine I use, my BANK, of course, probably my doctor, and maybe even my pharmaceutical company..

Even as a lefty, I don't wanna pay more taxes than I owe, and I WILL take whatever steps I can to SHIELD myself FROM the government..

I find those beliefs to be entirely consistent..

excon

I kinda get it.  I'm not even sure  if I am disagreeing with you to be honest.
Tough situation with a lot of needed balance on the subject.  Going to far either way creates bad situations.  I think we might agree on that.
It's kinda hard to put trust in either one to do the right things.
I hear ya' about the individual's right to privacy.

Hello again, Glis:

It's NOT a matter of trust..  It's a matter of law..  US law REQUIRES your bank to snitch.. Laws in tax havens FORBID their banks from snitching..

excon

Read reply below. Same thing applies.

I used to write for a company that helped people set up their offshore banking accounts. Privacy is a real draw. Some of it has to do with taxes, but the wealthy tend to want their finances private. Here, you run a credit report and all your stuff shows up on it. Big amounts of money draw the attention of the government- not just the IRS, and they can often take all of your money. It used to be a big thing with suspected drug dealers. They'd take all their money and consider it "drug money." Meanwhile, the person, who may be innocent and may have earned some or all of the funds through legal means, can't even afford a lawyer. The laws have since changed on that. The gov't can only take/ freeze what they can prove is related to the sale of drugs, but where there's a will there's a way.

Situations like this with the gov't, fraud, identity theft, etc... they're all reasons to keep your "eggs" in different baskets. Mmm.... not to mention that whole mess in Greece. Switzerland used to be the country known specifically for being private. They'd let people open up accounts with no personal information. They biffed it a couple years back and started sharing info with the US to help us catch tax evaders. That's all good and fine, but, really, they're just  taking our government's word that we owe money and we may not. Should the gov't really be able to follow us out of the country? 

No denial.  Good points.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the implication that banks were ever or are our friends or on our side.  I'm equally distrustful of both and see them mostly one of the same. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 3, 2017 10:29 AM MST

Hello again, Glis:

Nobody is saying the banks are on our side, or that they're friendly..  As you mentioned earlier, they're in existence for PROFIT, and PROFIT only..  Turns out, keeping a clients information PRIVATE is VERY profitable..  They certainly don't do it to be nice. 

As JA mentioned, the US puts pressure on tax havens because they want them to squeal..  But, the world is such, that as soon as ONE tax haven is split open, another one opens somewhere else..  People REALLY do want privacy..  Ordinary people too.  You don't have to be rich to want privacy..  It's easy to open an offshore bank account..  You can probably do it from your computer..

excon This post was edited by excon at February 3, 2017 10:50 AM MST

You're just stating facts without bringing any ideas, solutions, or concepts. You're not making any point.

Hello again, Glis:

Ok..  Then I guess we're done..

excon

"Liberal" Capitalists are often confused. You can't be both...

You can't?

I asked them about this the other day and they're very hush-hush about their practices. There's no predefined limit. The rep said it was about behavior patterns. When things work out right, I have a habit of paying all my bills, or at least half a month, when my funds come in. I work for myself, so I don't have a set payday, but if my clients pay all at once, I just go through and do all my outgoing bills at once. Then, I don't touch the account for a couple of weeks. That apparently looks "suspicious." It's ok for me to not spend money, but the moment I go through and pay my bills/ grab money for groceries/ etc... it apparently trips their fraud detection every time. 

That makes sense for the first time they flag it. But not after that because then it is not out of the normal behavior. I am also self employed so I understand paying bills as soon as money is available.  I know if it happened to me that often I would likely to changing banks.