Nosy banks

So, you can actually get all this done without ever stepping foot in a bank or dealing with any of that usual headache.

It took me maybe 10 to 15 seconds—depending on whether you count the time spent verifying info with a security token.
And yeah, the hobby field is just an optional detail, as you can see in the screenshot.

James Rogers53 said:So, you can actually get all this done without ever stepping foot in a bank or dealing with any of that usual headache.

It took me maybe 10 to 15 seconds—depending on whether you count the time spent verifying info with a security token.
And yeah, the hobby field is just an optional detail, as you can see in the screenshot.

What about stuff like marital status, occupation, education, job title, phone number, or hobbies?
Who even cares about that junk!

Marital status is optional, education is optional—you can even just put "other" under occupation. You can list whatever phone number you want, too, even if it's fake, if you think that helps your case.
But you do realize that regardless of all that, the bank sees much more personal stuff about you without even asking, right?

James Rogers53 said:Marital status is optional, education is optional—you can even just put "other" under occupation. You can list whatever phone number you want, too, even if it's fake, if you think that helps your case.
But you do realize that regardless of all that, the bank sees much more personal stuff about you without even asking, right?

I already asked you that. If they know why they're messing with you and asking such stupid questions, then why?

They asked me which transactions I make most frequently 🙄—as if they couldn't see it all more clearly than I can with just two clicks of a mouse. Of course, they don't actually need my input; the only logical reason for them to ask is to provide some semblance of consent for their data mining (given that you have to sign off on them doing whatever they please with it)
is so they can leverage that data later to extract maximum value from you. Whether it's passing your info along to insurance companies—who find it incredibly useful to know your exact salary and bank balance—or offering you credit based on your perceived solvency,
it's all about tailoring service packages to your needs... or perhaps ensuring Walmart can send you personalized coupons for the exact items you buy most often...

@wiredlynx28, am I correct in my assessment?

Laura Chavez93 said:They asked me which transactions I make most frequently 🙄—as if they couldn't see it all more clearly than I can with just two clicks of a mouse. Of course, they don't actually need my input; the only logical reason for them to ask is to provide some semblance of consent for their data mining (given that you have to sign off on them doing whatever they please with it)
is so they can leverage that data later to extract maximum value from you. Whether it's passing your info along to insurance companies—who find it incredibly useful to know your exact salary and bank balance—or offering you credit based on your perceived solvency,
it's all about tailoring service packages to your needs... or perhaps ensuring Walmart can send you personalized coupons for the exact items you buy most often...

Regarding the Walmart situation, yeah, they partner up with Chase.
As for the other banks, you can opt-in by checking a box if you want them to use your data for marketing and stuff within the bank or its parent group. Think JPMorgan Chase or Wells Fargo.

So, does all that posturing actually pay off in the end?
I'm curious how many others have been in my shoes—moving funds over to a different bank, only to realize that all those threats and demands were essentially empty...

There aren't many people like you—I guess I'll take that as a compliment, though it isn't exactly 😁

The irony here is killing me. You guys love to trash anyone who actually bothers to "fight the banks"—calling them a waste of time, saying they’re overreacting or just being dramatic...
But get this: you’ve been recycling the exact same tired arguments on this thread for weeks. So, what, you’re spending all your precious energy and resources just to try and convince someone else not to spend theirs? Make it make sense. 🤦

Trash?

🙂 is what people typically call trolling—though it seems 🙄
is perfectly acceptable here. I can somewhat sympathize with the hostess, given that this behavior serves her interests, but as for the rest of you—those who have no stake in this yet feel compelled to label others as idiots... it appears this is the most "tolerant" corner of the Forum, where just about anything goes. I am genuinely curious to see if there would be any pushback if I were to tell them they are fools simply for meddling in matters that don't concern them in the slightest...

Harold Evans4 said:The irony here is killing me. You guys love to trash anyone who actually bothers to "fight the banks"—calling them a waste of time, saying they’re overreacting or just being dramatic...
But get this: you’ve been recycling the exact same tired arguments on this thread for weeks. So, what, you’re spending all your precious energy and resources just to try and convince someone else not to spend theirs? Make it make sense. 🤦

Trash?

Fighting people who are busy "fighting the banks" is such a noble cause, isn't it? 😁

-Steve

On a separate note, I’ve been wondering how the moderators would handle it if some random interloper crashed this thread about Swiss Franc loans—someone who doesn't even carry any debt themselves
...and proceeded to lash out at everyone who actually took out a loan, claiming they were all fools for signing those papers and essentially deserved their current predicament ☕

Laura Chavez93 said:On a separate note, I’ve been wondering how the moderators would handle it if some random interloper crashed this thread about Swiss Franc loans—someone who doesn't even carry any debt themselves
...and proceeded to lash out at everyone who actually took out a loan, claiming they were all fools for signing those papers and essentially deserved their current predicament ☕

I mean, I think that's pretty much how it went down, if I remember right ;(

So, you're telling me they put the selective criteria for different topics all within the same PDF document?

Laura Chavez93 said:So, you're telling me they put the selective criteria for different topics all within the same PDF document?

I guess so, though honestly, it's probably best to just ignore those trolls. You can report them here and there, but there's always going to be some idiot trying to hold others back or boosting their own ego by calling people "lower beings."

Anyway, a friend sent me a message—the guy who was asking banks what legal basis they have for demanding info on income that has nothing to do with his business with them.

I'm reading his question, then I read the bank's response, and I just can't believe how someone can act so clueless and simply ignore the actual question to give an answer that wasn't even asked.

The question was basically:
"I have account activity totaling $1.00 from my parents transferring money here and there. I know under the law you have to verify the source of funds involved in business with the bank, but why on earth are you asking for data on funds that aren't, and will never be, part of my business relationship with the bank?"

The response:
"The bank is obligated to monitor and verify that the source of funds aligns with the declared source, and accordingly collect data regarding the source of funds that are or will be subject to the business relationship, pursuant to Section 16, Subsection 1, Item 10 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act."

And this is already the third exchange where the bank acts like they didn't read the question properly, just repeating themselves like a parrot. If the bank (in this case, Chase) were a real person, they’d probably be committed to a mental institution and stripped of their legal capacity because they clearly lack the intellectual capacity. It feels like you just can't get through to them.

It doesn't surprise me one bit—the endless chanting about how you "must visit a local branch" or "need to complete this specific questionnaire"... yet the moment you actually ask them to clarify what Article 16 of the law they keep citing actually entails, they suddenly fall silent 🙂

If it’s actually important to you, then go ahead and study it. This isn't The New York Times.

The outcome will be identical if you try to wire money to high-risk regions like North Korea or some shady offshore tax haven. The bank just cites a specific legal clause and that's the end of it.
But obviously, none of you have a clue what you're talking about; you're all just banging on the keys like a toddler on a piano.

As neondriver5 pointed out a few lines ago, people like you are a rare breed—and you shouldn't necessarily take that as a compliment.

neondriver5 said:If it’s actually important to you, then go ahead and study it. This isn't The New York Times.

The outcome will be identical if you try to wire money to high-risk regions like North Korea or some shady offshore tax haven. The bank just cites a specific legal clause and that's the end of it.
But obviously, none of you have a clue what you're talking about; you're all just banging on the keys like a toddler on a piano.

As neondriver5 pointed out a few lines ago, people like you are a rare breed—and you shouldn't necessarily take that as a compliment.

It feels like you haven't been following this thread from the start. The issue is that the bank is citing a section of the law that doesn't even exist. You have The New York Times online; you don't need to be an expert, you just need to know how to read. I'm not sure what high-risk countries have to do with this, and I don't think anyone else is having issues with that.

The bank is citing a law they clearly haven't even read, acting like they just don't care about the law. Maybe that's fine with you, but some people aren't okay with it.

Oh sure, you guys obviously have no clue what you're talking about, just banging on the keys blindly.

You’re just telling people they "have no clue" without providing any actual proof or arguments, probably hoping someone will bite and argue with you. I don't really get what the rush is, but maybe stop trying to provoke everyone. Complaints have already caused Chase to slightly tweak their questionnaire, though it's still pretty messy. I mean, being childish isn't really helping your case.

Like the user mentioned a few lines ago, there aren't many people like you, so you shouldn't necessarily take it as a compliment.

Yeah, someone always jumps in with those childish provocations, but it looks like nobody is biting, which is fine. I guess it's best to just ignore trolls, if you agree 😉. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious why it bothers you so much that not every citizen follows bank rules without questioning them, and then you just resort to insults, but honestly, I doubt we'll ever get an answer to that.

Nathan Morris3 said:It feels like you haven't been following this thread from the start. The issue is that the bank is citing a section of the law that doesn't even exist. You have The New York Times online; you don't need to be an expert, you just need to know how to read. I'm not sure what high-risk countries have to do with this, and I don't think anyone else is having issues with that.

The bank is citing a law they clearly haven't even read, acting like they just don't care about the law. Maybe that's fine with you, but some people aren't okay with it.

Oh sure, you guys obviously have no clue what you're talking about, just banging on the keys blindly.

You’re just telling people they "have no clue" without providing any actual proof or arguments, probably hoping someone will bite and argue with you. I don't really get what the rush is, but maybe stop trying to provoke everyone. Complaints have already caused Chase to slightly tweak their questionnaire, though it's still pretty messy. I mean, being childish isn't really helping your case.

Like the user mentioned a few lines ago, there aren't many people like you, so you shouldn't necessarily take it as a compliment.

Yeah, someone always jumps in with those childish provocations, but it looks like nobody is biting, which is fine. I guess it's best to just ignore trolls, if you agree 😉. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious why it bothers you so much that not every citizen follows bank rules without questioning them, and then you just resort to insults, but honestly, I doubt we'll ever get an answer to that.

Besides, if you actually know how to read, you'll find that specific law, section, and subsection and realize that 😵