Why should the bank/institution be responsible for protecting individuals from themselves? They don't have police power- protecting people from bad actors is like, the reason to have a state. If the state wishes to farm it out to third parties, then we don't need the state anymore!

▲

richwater 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yea I have no idea why the original commenter thinks Banks should have the power to tell me what I can and can't do with my own money.

It's nice that Zelle has checks and identity information shown to you when you're sending money, but if I click through 5 screens that say "Yes I know this person" but I actually don't.....no amount of regulation is going to solve that.

	▲	hypeatei 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Banks absolutely have that power and will stop transactions that seem suspicious or fraudulent already, no? Sometimes they'll call/text to verify you want it go through. I imagine that type of thing but cranked up for accounts flagged "vulnerable" where a family or the person themselves can check a box saying "yes, lockdown this account heavily please" (or whatever you can imagine, idk, I'm not a bank)

▲

hypeatei 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The bank/institution is where the money is leaving from therefore they should implement policies that protect vulnerable customers like seniors, for example. I don't know how that looks but it seems reasonable that they could put limits on an account flagged "vulnerable person"

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rant about police power and a state? Google isn't the government either. What would legislation provide that banks can't already do today?

▲

limagnolia 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, there are things banks can do, and those are features they can market. But ultimately, if the state isn't pursuing criminals who prey on the vulnerable, then society as we know it has failed and we would need a new society, or a new state, or both...The bank can't arrest anyone!

I never said anything about it being Googles responsability, I agree it is not. And the only legislation that might be necessary over what we have is a budget directly to go after criminal fraudsters.

	▲	hypeatei 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fraud is already illegal, the issue is that these scammers reside in other countries. I don't doubt there could be pressure applied from really high up at the diplomatic level but I highly doubt the FBI for example is going to be able to do anything even with legislation.