Good! Security should never make up front exceptions.

bastawhiz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why should it be an exception? Why is it a rule that he has to show up in person in the first place? What is the point of even having security questions if they don't trust them? Who, exactly, is changing their address to _Vatican City_ that will not require special handling _no matter what the circumstance_?

I sat in a Wells Fargo once locked in a staring contest with a banker there. They wanted a debit card to process a wire transfer to pay the down payment on a house. I signed up for the account online and had chosen not to get a debit card. I could withdraw all of my money as a cashier's check if I wanted, but standard procedure would not initiate a wire transfer. It was not, in fact, an "exception" to allow me to bank with them that day, it was a stupid rule that prevented me from doing so initially.

Imagine being detained in another country where you're prevented from leaving. Should the bank still say "nah, you've got to come here in person, we don't make exceptions." They could call the US embassy where you're located for proof. There are a lot of things they could do to resolve the situation. In fact, arguably _the whole value proposition_ for the bank having a customer service line _is to resolve exceptions_.

	▲	toss1 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This deserves reiterating: The whole value proposition for the bank having a customer service line is to RESOLVE exceptions. Yes, perhaps the first-line customer service should stick with the policy. If they cannot handle the situation (either to lack of knowledge or authority), the first line reps should ALSO FIND and ESCALATE the exceptions to a rep who DOES have the knowledge and authority to resolve the problem When a company does not do that, they demonstrate that, despite all their marketing statements that they care about and value their customers, they, in fact NEITHER give a fck about nor value their customers.

▲

jandrese 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Scianna then somehow connected with the bank's president, who reiterated that its policy requires in-person changes. The response was simple, McCarthy said.

> "Well, then the pope is going to move his account to a different bank."

> In the end, the bank made an exception.

Honestly, he should have moved his account anyway if the bank in Chicago has a strict in-person policy for some actions. That's never going to be practical for a person who lives in Vatican City. If he's going to be living in the Vatican until he dies he might as well use a local bank.

	▲	throw0101a an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> That's never going to be practical for a person who lives in Vatican City. If he's going to be living in the Vatican until he dies he might as well use a local bank. These may have been 'legacy' accounts, as he was a bishop in Peru for almost a decade: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIV#Bishop_of_Chiclay... So he was born and raised, and had early ministries in the area, but has been outside of Chicago for a number of recent years. It may have been easy enough for him to travel back home (?) when he was 'only' a bishop or cardinal, but has been more difficult more recently. Dealing with / consolidating old accounts may not have been a priority for him.
	▲	chuckadams an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> If he's going to be living in the Vatican until he dies he might as well use a local bank. Like, say, the Vatican's own bank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Rel...
	▲	NDlurker an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe he owns property in the US or has accounts here or something where it would be more of a hassle to use a foreign bank