bank fingerprinting

[mad as hell]

Does anybody know if it has been found to be illegal for a bank or other financial institution to require fingerprints when cashing a check? A lot of banks do it, but is it legal? I'm from Georgia.

 

[reg]

[No message]

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mad as hell:
Does anybody know if it has been found to be illegal for a bank or other financial institution to require fingerprints when cashing a check? A lot of banks do it, but is it legal? I'm from Georgia.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Here's an article about the subject that may be of interest to you, and where you can find more information specific to your question:

BANK FINGERPRINTING: CALIFORNIA'S NEWEST PRIVACY INVASION
New survey finds nearly all large California banks now require fingerprints to cash a check
A statewide consumer watchdog group today warned about the privacy invasion of a growing trend by California banks to require fingerprints of customers to cash checks or open new accounts. The California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) also released a new survey showing that, one year after the practice first began, nearly every big bank in California now requires a fingerprint to cash a non-accountholder's check and at least one bank also requires all customers opening new accounts to give fingerprints. The group warned that, if left unchecked, the trend will spread to all bank accountholders and to other industries, and called on the California state legislature to join several other states considering prohibiting the practice.
"If banks can require our fingerprints today, what will they want next, urine samples and blood tests?" asked Jon Golinger, Consumer Advocate with CALPIRG. "This is nothing more than Big Brother Banks attacking consumer privacy and calling it consumer protection. Instead of invading our privacy further and compiling more information about us, banks that want to cut down on check fraud should go after the criminals, not innocent consumers."

CALPIRG's telephone survey last month of the largest California banks revealed that, one year after Great Western first introduced the fingerprinting practice here in November 1996, 9 of the 11 largest banks now require fingerprints from non-customers to cash checks in some or all of their California branches. Great Western, Glendale Federal, Sanwa, Union, and US Bank require fingerprinting in all of their statewide branches while Bank of America, Bank of the West, California Federal, and Wells Fargo currently are fingerprinting in at least some branches. Only Home Savings of America and Sumitomo Bank do not require fingerprints, although they may be considering doing so as well. Great Western was also found to be fingerprinting its own accountholders, requiring all customers opening new accounts to provide a thumbprint and index fingerprint.

According to CALPIRG, the reasons that California banks are pushing fingerprinting as a new check fraud-fighting tool are simple: it makes them appear to be combating fraud while costing almost nothing. As lax credit procedures and easy access to customer information have helped check and credit fraud rise in California in recent years, banks have come under fire for refusing to give consumers more control over their personal information and protection of their credit and checking accounts. Banks see fingerprinting as a cheap way to appear to be doing something about fraud without having to make any real changes to the way they verify checks, offer credit, or handle personal information. Each inkless fingerprinting pad costs banks around $4, and none of the banks surveyed appeared to be incurring any additional expenses using the fingerprints to actually identify customers - the fingerprint is simply put on a check and filed away, used only if a bad check is found. The procedure has minuscule costs to the bank but allows them to tout their new policy as a testament to their willingness to take action, without having to take any serious steps to check customer identity by verifying signatures or fight the largest source of check fraud - organized crime rings.

"While fingerprinting is cheap and easy for banks, consumers who need to pay their bills are forced to give up one of the most precious things they own - their identity," said CALPIRG's Golinger. "And once fingerprints are put on file, there is no way consumers can protect them or get them back."

CALPIRG's main concerns about bank fingerprinting include the following:

1) Privacy infringement - bank fingerprinting is an invasive procedure that assumes the consumer is a potential criminal and requires giving up a precious piece of personal identifying information. It is an infringement on civil liberties and may violate the right to privacy outlined in the California Constitution;

2) Consumers have almost no choice - with nearly every large bank and numerous small ones now fingerprinting, consumers are forced to either give up a fingerprint, switch their bank account, or pay an exorbitant fee at a check-cashing store. Low-income consumers who cannot afford a bank account and commonly cash checks are disproportionately affected;

3) Fingerprints on file may be misused in the future - since there are no rules governing the safeguarding of fingerprints kept in bank files, they may be sold just as banks sell lists of other consumer information, or accessed by any bank employee, scanned into a computer, and misused. Government agencies could also potentially subpoena the fingerprints and use them for whatever purposes they choose;

Additionally, all bank disclosures about fingerprinting are posted inside the banks near teller windows, which a consumer only sees once they come into the bank, fill out required forms, and wait in line, making it more difficult to refuse being fingerprinted. No banks appear to have posted disclosures about fingerprinting either outside the bank or on account brochures.

The legality of bank fingerprinting has yet to be tested in court, although a Berkeley businessman who refused to give up a fingerprint and was not allowed to cash his check did file a small claims case against Wells Fargo in March. While the court decided it did not have jurisdiction over the case, the judge called the bank fingerprinting practice "outrageous" and suggested that a higher court may be inclined to issue an injunction against the practice as an anti-Constitutional infringement on civil liberties.

CALPIRG suggested that, if unchecked, fingerprinting will likely spread to all bank accountholders and to many other industries, including grocery stores, retailers, and credit cards. CALPIRG also noted that lobbyists for the California Bankers Association hinted at a recent hearing of the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee that they might want to pursue legislation that would legalize or require fingerprints in banks. CALPIRG is sending a request to members of the California state Assembly and Senate Banking Committees that they hold hearings on the fingerprinting issue early next year, and urged consumers to write their state legislator calling for a ban on bank fingerprinting. At least 3 other states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Connecticut - are considering legislation that would prohibit fingerprinting in banks.

"Like your address, birthdate, and social security number, banks want to make your fingerprint just another piece of data attached to your file," concluded CALPIRG's Golinger. "Although they say they're doing it for our own good, letting banks put fingerprints on file creates far more problems than it solves."


# # #
CALPIRG is a nonpartisan, consumer, environmental, and good government organization with 70,000 members around the state. To find out more about CALPIRG's Consumer Protection Program consumers can look at the CALPIRG website at www.pirg.org/calpirg/consumer or write to: CALPIRG Consumer Program, 926 J Street #523, Sacramento, CA 95814.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and ar