I would expect cashiers suspecting fraud would have a high and probably discriminatory false positive rate. I wouldn't be surprised if it also sucked at detecting any actual fraud
I'd bet many cases were obvious. How many people told the employees they were paying IRS fees? Or that they had a long lost relative who contacted them? Many of these scams aren't sophisticated and the people falling for them are gullible. It's not hard to imagine that an employee with a bit more sense than the customer could have simply been told what's happening and realized it's probably illegitimate.
I was chatting with an elderly man in front of me in line at the post office years ago. He was complaining that he had already paid so many fees but was really close to collecting his winnings from the Australian lottery (we were in the US). And according to him, he never even entered the lottery. I told him that this was a common scam and that they were simply stealing his money and to not send them anymore.
He said, no, he knew it was real because they gave him the phone number for a bank and he called and the man on the other end confirmed it was real.
I implored him not to send any more money, but he continued to take out a postal money order for a few hundred dollars.
I told the cashier that he was being scammed after he left and they just said "ya, but what can you do?"
My father, who is in his 70s, and mentally very sharp, although a little hard of hearing, was trying to organize a wire transfer from Australia to me in the US for around $25K.
He had a hell of a time doing it, not even as a matter of international wire logistics, but convincing the bank staff to "allow" him to do so because they were "concerned he was being scammed".
On one hand I appreciated their concern, but as he told them, "Do you see my (very very uncommon) family name? See his? It's my son." "Well, have you spoken to your son? Did he ask you to send him money on Facebook?" "No, WE offered to send him a gift towards downpayment of a house." "How do you know this is his bank account details?" "Because I asked him for them and he gave them to me?"
Frustrating, but I think a necessary thing considering how common older people are scammed. The name you are wiring to doesn't necessarily mean anything. And it is a very common scam for people to impersonate overseas family members and ask for money. So good on them for doing some due diligence. Especially someone who is hard of hearing can be susceptible to this type of scam because it may be more difficult to recognize a loved one's voice over the phone.
Why do you consider that total freedom of an oblivious individual fucking their finances is a good thing for society? As a society we are actually here to help others with our experiences, if the experience of a cashier with multiple fraudulent transactions can help a soul to not be a sucker, why shouldn't they use that power?
Why do you consider "lawful" as the only measure of "good"?
Those what? I feel you aren't really interested in engaging on a discussion here, throwing hot takes and platitudes isn't very conducive to have a conversation...
Well, if one sees a crime being committed against an elderly person, it is kind of an recognized social duty to intercede, though really there seems to be no good practical way of doing so in the case like this.
And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Unfortunately it is a very heavy legal process of a sledgehammer when i think in many cases it should be a surgeon knife.
You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?
Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop.
What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience.
This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse.
Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that.
Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.
It sounds to me like what you're criticizing is one particular method of addressing the problem, rather than the general idea that we need to address the problem.
It would absolutely be reasonable to continue fighting fraud by recognizing that these things can happen, and taking steps to combat them, without tilting it as far as you have seen in favor of banks essentially confiscating customer funds.
Well, suppose we learnt with 100% certainty that a spesific bank account belongs to dangerous criminals - surely we should not be allowing money transfers to that account - either you are beinflg scammed, or you are financing crime on purpose.
I sympathise with your position, but you cant have people awndong money to know drug dealera and terrorists and go "oh well, its their money" either
the additional angle to consoder is that we have duty of care to vupnerable individuals - elderly pwople and children.. like if a peraon with a degree in finance is buying crypto, no questions. but if someone in their 80s is investing in crypto becauae their neighbour tols them to, thats suspicious
i am writing this as someoje who currently can't send koney to family because the whole country has been sanctioned, so,
I see a the risk of some very cynical younger people who will discover that (while the loving bonds of family are all very well) they can make money by seizing their parents assets. There are some real monsters out there, especially once there is money on the line. Family courts go through horror cases on a daily basis. That risk of elder abuse is worse than scammers and much more pressing.
In this story the person in question did have their transaction questioned. Having it delayed is meaningless, there is no reason to believe a delay would have made them change their mind. This is a question of whether it is their money, the banks money or someone else's money and the correct answer is it belongs to the gentleman who is getting scammed. People will suffer less on average if we let them spend their own money as a matter of policy.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (J.S. Mill).
I think this is a good example of the limitations of this principle. It precludes social cohesion and mutual responsibility.
Walmart cashiers by and large are not sophisticated either. I mean that sounds harsh but these are not people walking in with a lot of financial savvy. Without training and reminders I would not think they would be any more likely to identify these scams than the victims are.
Maybe Walmart should be expected to employ people in these roles who are paid and trained well enough to be able to pass a test like "can you spot the most obvious scam that has ever scammed, at least once in a while?"
Perhaps, as you suggest, Wal-Mart should hire high-paid, well-trained executives from PayPal, Zelle, CashApp, Venmo or other services. God knows there's never been fraudulent transactions or scams on those platforms.
You obviously have a beef with Wal-Mart, writing essentially the same comment 4 times and seemingly ignoring the fact that virtually every supermarket and check-casher in the country has a similar employee running the Western Union desk.
Impeccable? You've made up your mind based solely on the accusation (which 2 of the 5 Commissioners voted against). I prefer waiting until the defense gets its say.
Yes, you're right. There's no middle ground between "3 hour morning training on using the Western Union console" and "fintech antifraud executive", none at all.
I am a minority, but every time a minority comes in, i tell them take their business elsewhere. After 30 years, you just know by how they walk. If some woke person analyzed this, they will definitely be correct.
