Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
On top of the banks protecting themselves angle, as already pointed out, banks are also protecting you from yourself.
It’s great to not need that protection. It’s also fine if you find it annoying. But it’s completely silly when people over-dramatize things like it’s some severe “invasion of privacy.” It’s an easy question to answer and isn’t a big deal, especially when you realize that banks knowing far more about you than the fact that you’re about to spend a few grand on a toy. Where it makes a big difference is for those that actually need that protection.
If banks putting 100 people through the arduous invasion of privacy known as “what is this money” for stops just one person from getting scammed, that’s a good thing. I know it’s hard, but we manage.
|
You may be OK with the intrusion of privacy, many people are not. It's not as much having an issue with the bank asking. However, you should also be free to decline answering, and still get your money that's where my issue is.
"What is this money for"
"I am buying Steam gift Cards for a guy name Frank Robertson that lives in Mumbai because aliens hacked the radio in my Hyundai and he needs the money to un hack it."
"Ok sir, are you familiar with online scams?"
You did your due diligence, saved the day, and the system worked in that scenario. But there comes a point where you've done your due diligence as a bank to make sure things are on the level, and you back off. And that line is "No thanks, none of your business, it's a private matter..." etc etc etc." There are thousand reasons someone may not want to answer, and just as many reasons the bank doesn't need to or have a right to know. It's a principal issue for me.
Sometimes people just have to be allowed to make dumb decisions without supervision, or intervention.