sorted by: new top controversial old
vote: should exclusive libraries be defunded? in c/libraries@literature.cafe
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The elitist idea that it’s okay to exclude people from public service for not having property cannot be framed as “harm reduction” when in fact it fails at that. The people who have mobile phones and subscriptions are the same people who can afford Wi-Fi at home, data plans, etc. These are people who are already served by the private marketplace. You merely give them a convenience at the expense of spending money in a way that marginalises the needy. It’s not just discrimination you advocate -- the money is poorly allocated when it should go toward serving precisely those you exclude; the ones underserved by the private sector. By catering for the more privileged you only introduce harm by creating a false baseline that harms the excluded groups even more. Libraries were more inclusive 10 years ago, before they needlessly introduced these SMS-imposing captive portals. And some still are inclusive. Some poorly managed libraries have gone in an exclusive direction and this trend is spreading.

We’re at #2.

Who? Which library is at #2? Some libraries are entirely inclusive and treat everyone equally. Some libraries have regressed and have no pressure to join the inclusive world. You’re opposing the pressure that’s needed to make them better. That’s not helpful.. that just enables the problem to worsen.

vote: should exclusive libraries be defunded? in c/libraries@literature.cafe
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Having services for some rather than none is quintessential harm reduction.

No it’s not. It increases the harm. We have already reached a point where many governments assume everyone is online and they have used that assumption to remove offline services. So people who are excluded are further harmed by the exclusivity as it creates more exclusivity. If a public service cannot be inclusive then nixing it ensures the infrastucture is in place to compensate knowing that the service is not in place.

extremely childish and harmful.

Elitism is extremely childish and harmful. Respect for human rights is socially responsible. It’s the adult stance.

Unified Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21:

“2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”

vote: should exclusive libraries be defunded? in c/libraries@literature.cafe
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If a library is exclusive the threat of defunding has two outcomes:

  • compliance -- to become inclusive and (if necessary) show the door to elitists therein who think it’s okay to exclude people
  • closure (unrealistic, see below)

Either outcome is better than directing public money toward exclusive services. In the case of closure, the same money can rightfully be redirected toward other libraries that are inclusive.

Compliance splits into two possible outcomes:

  • exclusive services dropped entirely; inclusive services like book/media access continue
  • exclusive services reworked to become inclusive

Both of those are better outcomes than inequality. Dropping an exclusive service invites pressure to fix it. In any case, the elitism of exclusive public service is unacceptible because it undermines human rights.

(edit) One thing I did not consider is the exclusive services getting non-public funding. If Wi-Fi is going to be exclusive/elitist, perhaps it’s fair enough to continue as such as long as Google or Apple finances it. The private sector is littered with exclusivity and that doesn’t pose a human rights issue. In any case it’s an injustice if one dime of public money goes toward a service that is exclusive, which has the perversion of potentially excluding someone whose tax funded it.

0
vote: should exclusive libraries be defunded? (eattherich.club)
submitted 3 months ago by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/libraries@literature.cafe
7 comments fedilink
1
Fritz!box -- trying to block myself from the WAN without blocking the modem itself (whitelist seems broken) (beehaw.org)
submitted 4 months ago by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/homenetworking@selfhosted.forum
0 comments fedilink

I created a whitelist access profile. That ensures that the whole WAN is blocked except what is exceptionally whitelisted. I started with an empty whitelist. The LAN is rightfully accessible and the WAN is rightfully inaccessible.

The router does not use DSL. Instead, it uses a USB mobile broadband LTE modem. The modem has its own website which gives SMS capability. The modem is technically upstream to the router, so it is blocked when the WAN blocking profile is enabled. I want to whitelist the modem so that when I am blocking WAN access I can still reach the web UI of the modem and monitor SMS msgs.

Fritzbox is designed so that all attempts to directly access an IP is blocked if whitelisting is in play. IP addresses cannot be whitelisted, only URLs using FQDNs. So I did “nslookup 10.10.50.8” to get the hostname of the modem. Then I whitelisted the hostname. That does not work. The modem is still blocked.

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A website isn’t a common carrier

We were talking about network neutrality, not just common carriers (which are only part of the netneutrality problem).

you cannot argue that a website isn’t allowed to control who they serve their content to.

Permission wasn’t the argument. When a website violates netneutrality principles, it’s not a problem of acting outside of authority. They are of course permitted to push access inequality assuming we are talking about the private sector where the contract permits it.

Cloudflare is a tool websites use to exercise that right,

One man’s freedom is another man’s oppression.

necessitated by the ever rising prevalence of bots and DDoS attacks.

It is /not/ necessary to use a tool as crude and reckless as Cloudflare to defend from attacks with disregard to collateral damage. There are many tools in the toolbox for that and CF is a poor choice favored by lazy admins.

Your proposed definition of net neutrality would destroy anyone’s ability to deal with these threats.

Only if you neglect to see admins who have found better ways to counter threats that do not make the security problem someone elses.

Can you at least provide examples of legitimate users who are hindered by the use of Cloudflare?

That was enumerated in a list in the linked article you replied to.

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Interstate commerce is governed by the federal government.

Not exclusively. Interstate commerce implies that the feds can regulate it, not that they have exclusive power to do so. We see this with MJ laws. The fed believes it has the power to prohibit marijuana on the basis of interstate commerce, but in fact mj can be grown locally, sold locally, and consumed locally. Just like internet service can be.

Suppose you want to buy a stun gun in New York. You can find stun guns sold via mail order from another state (thus interstate commerce), but New York still managed to ban them despite the role of interstate commerce.

A close analog would be phone laws. The fed has the TCPA to protect you from telemarketers, but at the same time various states add additional legal protections for consumers w.r.t. telemarketing and those laws have force even if the caller is outside the country. (Collecting on the judgement is another matter).

Schools now require the internet for kids. ISPs being allowed to be anything more than a dumb pipe means they have the control of what information is sent across their network.

Education is specifically a duty of the state set out in the Constitution. If you can point to the statute requiring schools to provide internet for students, I believe it will be state law not federal law that you find.

The internet is now a basic human right in the United States for numerous reasons, one of which is #2.

I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that because education is a human right, that internet access is a human right? It doesn’t work that way. First of all, people who do not exercise their right to an education would not derive any rights implied by education. As for the students, if a state requires internet in education that does not mean that internet access becomes a human right. E.g. an Amish family might lawfully opt to homeschool their child, without internet. That would satisfy the right to education enshrined in the Unified Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) just fine. A student attending public school in a state that mandates internet in schools would merely have the incidental privilege of internet access, not an expanded human right that students in other states and countries do not have under the same human rights convocation. If your claim were true, it would mean that California (for example) requiring internet provisions for students would then mean students in Haiti (a country that also signed the UDHR that entitles people to a right to education) or Texas would gain a right to internet access via the state of California’s internal law. A state cannot amend the UDHR willy nilly like that.

Also, if internet could be construed as a human right by some mechanism that’s escaping me, the fed is not exclusively bound by human rights law. The fed signed the treaty, but all governments therein (state and local) are also bound to uphold human rights. Even private companies are bound to human rights law in the wording of the text, though expectation of enforcement gets shaky.

ISPs cross state boundaries and should be governed by interstate law.

I subscribed to internet service from a WISP at one point. A dude in my neighborhood rolled out his own ISP service. His market did not even exceed the city.

The local ISPs have ISPs themselves and as you climb the supply chain eventually you get into the internet backbone which would be interstate, but that’s not where the netneutrality problem manifests. The netneutrality problem is at the bottom of the supply chain in the last mile of cable where the end user meets their local ISP.

Also with MJ laws, several states have liberated the use of marijuana despite the feds using the interstate commerce act to ban it.

An ISP being a business, especially a publicly-traded one, will sacrifice all manner of consumer/user-protection in order to maximize profit. And having the states govern against that will lead to a smattering of laws where it becomes muddy on what can actually be enforced, and where.

Sure, and if the fed is relaxed because the telecoms feed the warchests of the POTUS and Congress, you have a nationwide shit-show. A progressive state can fix that by imposing netneutrality requirements. Just like many states introduce extra anti-telemarketing laws that give consumers protection above and beyond the TCPA.

And having the states govern against that will lead to a smattering of laws where it becomes muddy on what can actually be enforced, and where.

That’s a problem for the ISPs that benefits consumers. If ISPs operating in different states then have to adjust their framework for one state that mandates netneutrality, the cost of maintaining different frameworks in different states becomes a diminishing return. US consumers often benefit from EU law in this way. The EU forced PC makers to make disassembly fast and trivial, so harmful components could quickly and cheaply be removed before trashing obsolete hardware. The US did not impose this. Dell was disturbed because they had to make pro-environment adjustments as a condition to access to the EU market. They calculated that it would be more costly to sell two different versions, so the PCs they made for both the EU market and the US market become more eco-friendly. Thanks to the EU muddying the waters.

The right to repair will have the same consequences.

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

On a serious note, plenty of people here surely know what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the guarantee that your ISP doesn’t (de-)prioritize traffic or outright block traffic, all packets are treated equally.

That’s true but it’s also the common (but overly shallow) take. It’s applicable here and good enough for the thread, but it’s worth noting that netneutrality is conceptually deeper than throttling and pricing games and beyond ISP shenanigans. The meaning was coined by Tim Wu, who spoke about access equality.

People fixate on performance which I find annoying in face of Cloudflare, who is not an ISP but who has done by far the most substantial damage to netneutrality worldwide by controlling who gets access to ~50%+ of world’s websites. The general public will never come to grasp Cloudflare’s oppression or the scale of it, much less relate it to netneutrality, for various reasons:

  • Cloudflare is invisible to those allowed inside the walled garden, so its existence is mostly unknown
  • The masses can only understand simple concepts about their speed being throttled. Understanding the nuts and bolts of discrimination based on IP address reputation is lost on most.
  • The US gov is obviously pleased that half the world’s padlocked web traffic is trivially within their unwarranted surveillance view via just one corporation in California. They don’t want people to realize the harm CF does to netneutrality and pressure lawmakers to draft netneutrality policy in a way that’s not narrowly ISP-focused.

Which means netneutrality policy is doomed to ignore Cloudflare and focus on ISPs.

Most people at least have some control over which ISP they select. Competition is paltry, but we all have zero control over whether a website they want to use is in Cloudflare’s exclusive walled garden.

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

Why would it necessarily have to be federal law, and not state law?

/cc @ulkesh@beehaw.org

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago

Whether the legislation is appropriate at the state or fed domain is unclear. Certainly if the orange tyrant takes power again, I would probably want state govs to be able to protect consumers from netneutrality abuses.

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It’s worth noting that the FCC’s so-called “Open” Internet Advisory Committee (#OIAC) tragically gives two seats on the board to:

  • Cloudflare
  • Comcast

Both of whom are abusers of #netneutrality, especially Cloudflare. A well-informed Trump-free administration should be showing Cloudflare and Comcast the door ASAP.

Sure, Trump would just bring them back. But it’d at least be a good symbolic move.

Indeed, as someone else pointed out, the needed change should come from pro-netneutrality legislation. And the legislation needs to be broad enough to block Cloudflare’s broad discriminatory arbitrary attack on access equality, not just tinker with speeds at the ISP consumer level.

Firefox plan to show ads and shopping in the near future in the browser as an opt-out in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 7 points 8 months ago

Hence why we need a public option.

HP wants you to pay up to $36/month to rent a printer that it monitors in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 33 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

from the article:

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, You hereby grant to HP a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free right to use, copy, store, transmit, modify, create derivative works of and display Your non-personal data for its business purposes.

Holy shit. I wonder if HP is feeding customers’ data to an #AI machine to exploit in some way. It doesn’t even seem to be limited to what people print. HP’s software package is probably not just a printer driver. But even if it is, a driver runs in the kernel space, so IIUC there’s no limit to what data it can mine.

HP wants you to pay up to $36/month to rent a printer that it monitors in c/technology@beehaw.org
[-] debanqued@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago

Glad to see mention of Oki! Oki is the single most ethical choice. But they pulled out of the US market, sadly enough. The US is no place for ethical products.

1
If Capital One merges with Discovercard, I will boycott /all/ credit cards (is that even possible?) (prospect.org)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/finance@beehaw.org
0 comments fedilink

For the past ~15 years I have tried for the most part to boycott:

  • American Express for being an #ALEC member (which supports #climateDenial and obstructs public healthcare, public education, immigration, gun control, etc), and for participating in the #Wikileaks donation blockade
  • Visa for pushing the #warOnCash (member of #betterThanCashAlliance.org and offering huge rewards to merchants who refuse cash), for participating in the #Wikileaks donation blockade, and for blocking Tor users from anonymously opting out of data sharing on their credit cards
  • Mastercard for pushing the #warOnCash (member of betterThanCashAlliance.org), for participating in the #Wikileaks donation blockade, and for blocking Tor users from anonymously opting out of data sharing on their credit cards

Discovercard has always been a clear lesser of evils. So Discovercard has earned the majority of my business whenever cash is not possible. But now I hear chatter that #Discovercard might merge with a shitty bank that had an embarrassing data leak by an Amazon contractor: #CapitalOne. I was disappointed when Samual Jackson promoted #CapOne. Capital One supported Trump’s Jan.6 insurrection attempt among other things.

So what’s left? JCB (Japanese) and UnionPay (China). JCB pulled out of the US like 10 years ago. People outside the US can get a #JCB card but then IIRC it uses the Discovercard network in the US and the #AmEx network in Canada.

I already favor cash whenever possible. In other cases it will be hard to choose the lesser of evils between CapOne and Mastercard.

update

Found an insightful article detailing a loophole that the fed gave to Discovercard which is why Capital One intends to buy it.

1
(EU+UK) Legal theory that closed-source software inherently undermines or violates the GDPR in some situations (beehaw.org)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/gdpr@sopuli.xyz
0 comments fedilink

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12170575

The GDPR has some rules that require data controllers to be fair and transparent. EDPB guidelines further clarify in detail what fairness and transparency entails. As far as I can tell, what I am reading strongly implies a need for source code to be released in situations where an application is directly executed by a data subject and the application also processes personal data.

I might expand on this more but I’m looking for information about whether this legal theory has been analyzed or tested. If anyone knows of related court opinions rulings, or even some NGO’s analysis on this topic I would greatly appreciate a reference.

#askFedi

3
National emergency app now available in Belgium (exclusively to Google and Apple patrons who run closed-source software) (web.archive.org)
submitted 8 months ago by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/escapebigtech@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
2 comments fedilink

cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/Brussels/t/556987

Belgium has adopted an “official” app so that anyone can signal for help, so long as they belong to this exclusive group:

  • Must have a smartphone (presumably recent).

  • Must be a trusting patron of #Google or #Apple. Consequently,

    • must needlessly buy a GSM subscription and trust surveillance advertisers with the mobile phone number (which in Belgium must be registered to an ID) — even though the app can make emergency contact without phone service… thus imposing a needless cost on users and also causing a #GDPR minimisation breach.

  • Must install and execute proprietary closed-source software. Consequently,

    • must trust closed-source software (by #Nextel or #Telenet?)
    • must be ethically aligned/okay with running #nonfreesoftware (which does not respect your freedom)

  • Must be willing to leave Tor to access the access-restricted 112.be website.

81
Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy? (beehaw.org)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org
74 comments fedilink

Mozilla is ~83% funded by Google. That’s right- the maker of the dominant Chrome browser is mostly behind its own noteworthy “competitor”. When Google holds that much influence over Mozilla, I call it a false duopoly because consumers are duped into thinking the two are strongly competing with each other. In Mozilla’s effort to please Google and to a lesser extent the end users, it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans. Users accept it because they see Firefox as the lesser of evils.

Even if it were a true duopoly, it would be insufficient anyway. For a tool that is so central to the UX of billions of people, there should be many more competitors.

public option

Every notable government has an online presence where they distribute information to the public. Yet they leave it to the public to come up with their own browser which may or may not be compatible with the public web service. In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off. It would be like telling citizens they can receive information about legislation that passes if they buy a private subscription to the Washington Post. The government should produce their own open source browser which adheres to open public standards and which all the gov websites are tested with.

I propose Italy

Italy is perhaps the only country in the world to have a “public money → public code” law, whereby any software development effort that is financed by the gov must be open source. So IMO Italy should develop a browser to be used to access websites of the Italian gov. Italy can save us from the false duopoly from Google.

66
Free software in education will take a step back -- republicans are going after school board positions nationwide in the US (web.archive.org)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org
13 comments fedilink

Since last year, republicans have launched a campaign to get conservatives on school boards. This is the political party in the US who favors privatization of everything. They are sympathetic to giant corporations and champion #citizensUnited (which elevates corporations above humans). #Ohio has a large number of extremists intending to take school board positions.

I don’t get the impression #FOSS orgs like #FSF are paying attention. The FOSS movement stands to lose some ground here. #FreeSoftware in education is important and FSF does not even have a campaign for it on their website.

1
When the FSF Free Software Directory directs people to freedom-lacking places (beehaw.org)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/freesoftware@lemmy.zip
0 comments fedilink

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/8984968

The #FSD purpose is to help people “find freedom-respecting programs”. Browsing the directory reveals copious freedom-disrespecting resources. For example:

FSF has no tags for these anti-features. It suggests a problem with integrity and credibility. People expect to be able to trust FSF as an org that prioritizes user freedom. Presenting this directory with unmarked freedom pitfalls sends the wrong message & risks compromising trust and transparency. Transparency is critical to the FOSS ideology. Why not clearly mark the freedom pitfalls?

UPDATE

The idea of having exclusive clubs with gatekeepers is inconsistent with FSF’s most basic principles, specifically:

  • All important site functionality that's enabled for use with that package works correctly (though it need not look as nice) in free browsers, including IceCat, without running any nonfree software sent by the site. (C0)
  • Does not discriminate against classes of users, or against any country. (C2)
  • Permits access via Tor (we consider this an important site function). (C3)

If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. It also automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR) because #InternetArchive is an #ALA member:

  • V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
  • VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
  • VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

The LBR is consistent with FSF’s principles so this is naturally a good solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are also noteworthy. Even if the FSD is technically not a public service, the public uses it and FSF is an IRS-qualified 501(c)(3) public charity, likely making it public enough to observe these UDHR clauses:

  • art.21 ¶2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  • art.27 ¶1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

These fundamental principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “not reasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.

26
When the FSF Free Software Directory directs people to freedom-lacking places (beehaw.org)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org
37 comments fedilink

The #FSD purpose is to help people “find freedom-respecting programs”. Browsing the directory reveals copious freedom-disrespecting resources. For example:

FSF has no tags for these anti-features. It suggests a problem with integrity and credibility. People expect to be able to trust FSF as an org that prioritizes user freedom. Presenting this directory with unmarked freedom pitfalls sends the wrong message & risks compromising trust and transparency. Transparency is critical to the FOSS ideology. Why not clearly mark the freedom pitfalls?

UPDATE

The idea of having exclusive clubs with gatekeepers is inconsistent with FSF’s most basic principles, specifically:

  • All important site functionality that's enabled for use with that package works correctly (though it need not look as nice) in free browsers, including IceCat, without running any nonfree software sent by the site. (C0)
  • Does not discriminate against classes of users, or against any country. (C2)
  • Permits access via Tor (we consider this an important site function). (C3)

Failing any of those earns an “F” grade (Github & gitlab·com both fail).

If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. #InternetArchive’s #ALA membership automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR), which includes:

  • V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
  • VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
  • VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

The LBR is consistent with FSF’s principles so this is a naturally fitting solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also noteworthy. Even if the FSD is technically not a public service, the public uses it and FSF is an IRS-qualified 501(c)(3) public charity, making it public enough to observe these UDHR clauses:

  • art.21 ¶2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  • art.27 ¶1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

These fundamental egalitarian principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “unreasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.

1
Some ATMs demand a PIN /before/ showing you options. Privacy issue? (beehaw.org)
submitted 1 year ago by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/finance@beehaw.org
0 comments fedilink

cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/privacy/t/346211

I need to check the balance of my bank card. It’s apparently becoming quite rare for ATMs to support balance inquiries. So as I try many different ATMs to check the balance, some ATMs demand PIN entry before you even see the service offers. So I enter my PIN and then it only gives a cash withdrawal option, at which point I eject.

Couple problems here:

  • anti-fraud AI sensors can be very fragile & trigger happy. If my card is inserted into several different ATMs with & no transaction is initiated, I am of course concerned that my account will be frozen due to fraud false positive.

  • some ATMs automatically print out your balance on the receipt if you ask for a receipt. Some show it on the screen Some ATMs will only print the balance on the receipt if you specifically requested the balance in your session. Some ATMs are completely incapable of balance inquiries (at least for cards from other banks). Consumers seem to have no way of knowing what kind of ATM they are dealing with in advance, which forces us to experiment.

Questions:

  • when an ATM demands PIN in advance, does that mean the transaction will signal the bank even if the session is terminated when the menu shows no balance inquiry option? IIUC, the PIN can be verified using the cards EMV chip without using the network - but is that necessarily the case?

  • when an ATM shows the menu options before asking for a PIN, can we count on no signal being sent to the bank?

One of my accounts got frozen for fraud. I called the bank, complained, demanded answers. The bankers themselves are kept in the dark and left guessing about what happened. One banker said “you asked for more than the daily limit 2 or 3 times, which failed, then you went to a different ATM and tried again. Since you went to a different machine, that likely looked like fraud”. (of course I tried a different machine -- why would a legit user keep trying the same machine?)

view more: next ›

debanqued

joined 2 years ago