It's probably one of the biggest criticism about PIX, the Brazilian method of transferring money: it's too easy. Early on, kidnappers started taking people off the streets and forcing them to transfer all their money, because victims had no choice but to give their password, and there was no limit on the transfer amount.

▲

catlikesshrimp 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Criminals always find a way Decades ago, there was a popular activity called "Paseos Millonarios" (More or less, Millionare Rides) where criminals at night picked up a victim coming out of an ATM, and took him to several other ATMs around, everytime drawing non-suspicious amounts of money. The criminals didn't even need the PIN. They neither entered the ATM hut because only the card holder was sent in.

The final solution was disabling the ATM network durimg night, except the ones located in safe places. Showing you are drawing money in a hurry in a lone hut in the night was a bad idea, anyways.

▲

robocat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Daily limit for ATM withdrawals exists in New Zealand (NZD2000 I think).

Why did they visit multiple ATMs?

▲

teachrdan 2 days ago | parent [-]

In developing countries, individual ATMs may run out of currency, well before you hit the daily limit. To pay for language school in Ecuador I had to go to multiple ATMs and withdraw as much as they had in each one. Literally every pocket of mine was bulging with paper currency :/

▲

throwaway2037 2 days ago | parent [-]

I thought that Ecuador switched to use the US Dollar as their local currency in the year 2000. Was this before the year 2000? Or was your withdraw limit in USD tiny... or was your school bill huge (hardest scenario to believe!)?

	▲	teachrdan 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was c1998 -- dollarization would have been extremely convenient for me!

▲

ryandrake 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Many highly-sophisticated technical solutions are still vulnerable to the "wrench attack". https://xkcd.com/538/

Unfortunately, whenever governments try to solve the wrench attack, they do so by removing the end user's control over their own stuff.

	▲	Marsymars 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And if you, as a savvy individual, makes yourself immune to a wrench attack, it’s unhelpful if the person hitting you with a wrench doesn’t believe you.

▲

jajko 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unlimited amount? Sure, I can easily see some non-standard situation where its very beneficial (ie once-a-decade home reconstruction). But only on a limited account having only the amount I don't mind exposing, which normally is very low.

▲

dkga 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, but the Central Bank of Brazil caught up quickly.

▲

msm_ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>it's too easy

To be honest, in my country I can also transfer all my liquid money (not countings stocks etc) with just my phone. The difference is that i'm not afraid of being kidnapped (it's safe here). And anyway, how much does normal person hold in the cash account? People living month-to-month don't have much anyway, while people with savings usually keep them in stocks/bonds/etc.

	▲	israrkhan 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That is simply not true. I know people who can have millions in their cash account. Also sometimes you need to liquidate your money and put it in cash account, for example down payment for an upcoming home purchase.