New Check Law

[Greg Butler]

I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit check
electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots are
employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.

[Morgans]

Old news. Yes, some that used to do that had to adapt. Others just went
out of business.
--
Jim in NC


"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit check
> electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
> Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots
are
> employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Morgans]

Old news. Yes, some that used to do that had to adapt. Others just went
out of business.
--
Jim in NC


"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit check
> electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
> Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots
are
> employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Greg Butler]

Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for as
long as possible. Oh well

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Old news. Yes, some that used to do that had to adapt. Others just went
> out of business.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit
check
> > electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
> >
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
> > Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots
> are
> > employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004
>
>

[Greg Butler]

Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for as
long as possible. Oh well

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Old news. Yes, some that used to do that had to adapt. Others just went
> out of business.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit
check
> > electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
> >
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
> > Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots
> are
> > employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004
>
>

[Gary G]

I've heard that it will impact it.
However, much like having a job in textiles or
other commodity manufactured goods, times change
and people lost their jobs to overseas.

This new one is due to technology.
There are very talented software people losing there
jobs to South Asia.

I hate to see folks lose their jobs!
But people do have to read the tea leaves and
prepare for the future.
My coal-mining/textile manufacturing parents prepared me by insuring I went
to school.
Sometimes the window seems like only months or a few years!

[Gary G]

I've heard that it will impact it.
However, much like having a job in textiles or
other commodity manufactured goods, times change
and people lost their jobs to overseas.

This new one is due to technology.
There are very talented software people losing there
jobs to South Asia.

I hate to see folks lose their jobs!
But people do have to read the tea leaves and
prepare for the future.
My coal-mining/textile manufacturing parents prepared me by insuring I went
to school.
Sometimes the window seems like only months or a few years!

[Morgans]

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
> effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for
as
> long as possible. Oh well

I don't know how the law was written, but my bank has not been returning
checks for about a year.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Morgans]

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
> effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for
as
> long as possible. Oh well

I don't know how the law was written, but my bank has not been returning
checks for about a year.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

[Greg Butler]

Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
> > effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for
> as
> > long as possible. Oh well
>
> I don't know how the law was written, but my bank has not been returning
> checks for about a year.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004
>
>

[Greg Butler]

Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
> > effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for
> as
> > long as possible. Oh well
>
> I don't know how the law was written, but my bank has not been returning
> checks for about a year.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004
>
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


Y'all ain't getting it.

This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
seconds, then gives you back your original check.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


Y'all ain't getting it.

This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
seconds, then gives you back your original check.

--
Jim Fisher

[John E. Carty]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
>> weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
businesses from bad checks :-)

>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. The new
process debits your account immediately :-)

[John E. Carty]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
>> weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
businesses from bad checks :-)

>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. The new
process debits your account immediately :-)

[Robert B.]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
> > original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
weeks
> > they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Jim,

Actually, what you're referring to has nothing to do with the new law. The
new law was written post-911 when the grounding of all the aircraft
prevented a lot of checks from being transferred to the appropriate banks.
The new law gives electronic copies of checks the same validity as the
physical check. It allows a receiving bank to electronically transmit your
check to your bank for payment. It still takes a bit for the check to make
it to the first bank, then scan it in, and do the transaction with your
bank.

What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used an
electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.

[Robert B.]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
> > original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
weeks
> > they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Jim,

Actually, what you're referring to has nothing to do with the new law. The
new law was written post-911 when the grounding of all the aircraft
prevented a lot of checks from being transferred to the appropriate banks.
The new law gives electronic copies of checks the same validity as the
physical check. It allows a receiving bank to electronically transmit your
check to your bank for payment. It still takes a bit for the check to make
it to the first bank, then scan it in, and do the transaction with your
bank.

What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used an
electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.

[Greg Butler]

"Robert B." > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
> > > original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
> weeks
> > > they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
> >
> >
> > Y'all ain't getting it.
> >
> > This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> > seconds, then gives you back your original check.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Fisher
>
> Jim,
>
> Actually, what you're referring to has nothing to do with the new law.
The
> new law was written post-911 when the grounding of all the aircraft
> prevented a lot of checks from being transferred to the appropriate banks.
> The new law gives electronic copies of checks the same validity as the
> physical check. It allows a receiving bank to electronically transmit
your
> check to your bank for payment. It still takes a bit for the check to
make
> it to the first bank, then scan it in, and do the transaction with your
> bank.
>
> What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
> the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
> along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
> electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used
an
> electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
> store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.
>
>


Right, what I was talking about was the new law that makes an electronic
copy of the check just as legal as the original, thus eliminating the need
for delivery of cancelled checks.

[BTIZ]

Stores have been doing that around here for a few years.. works like a debit
card at that point.. instantly removed from your account.. no float..

BT

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
>> weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

[BTIZ]

Stores have been doing that around here for a few years.. works like a debit
card at that point.. instantly removed from your account.. no float..

BT

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
>> weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

[BTIZ]

> What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
> the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
> along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
> electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used
> an
> electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
> store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.


And then they scan it after you've left and it has the same effect.. you
just don't get your check handed back to you.. but it does require them to
process it through the banking system.. but they put a "pending withdrawal"
on your account so they get first dibs on your money..

BT

[BTIZ]

> What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
> the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
> along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
> electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used
> an
> electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
> store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.


And then they scan it after you've left and it has the same effect.. you
just don't get your check handed back to you.. but it does require them to
process it through the banking system.. but they put a "pending withdrawal"
on your account so they get first dibs on your money..

BT

[GeorgeB]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:51:29 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
> wrote:

>
>"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
>Y'all ain't getting it.
>
>This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
>seconds, then gives you back your original check.

2 or 3 years ago, my wife and I had this done at 1 place, 1 time.
Perhaps it was a test, the situation has never repeated. This is
Greenville SC. We use a credit union, so it was not a bank test
restricted to the store and us using the same bank.

I've wondered about it since, and wish I could remember where it was.

[GeorgeB]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:51:29 -0500, "Jim Fisher"
> wrote:

>
>"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
...
>> Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
>> original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
>> they still have to legally send the originals between banks.
>
>
>Y'all ain't getting it.
>
>This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
>seconds, then gives you back your original check.

2 or 3 years ago, my wife and I had this done at 1 place, 1 time.
Perhaps it was a test, the situation has never repeated. This is
Greenville SC. We use a credit union, so it was not a bank test
restricted to the store and us using the same bank.

I've wondered about it since, and wish I could remember where it was.

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:26:59 -0500, "Greg Butler"
> wrote:

>I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit check
>electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
>Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots are
>employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.

Yes, it will destroy the check-delivery business. I wonder what
percentage of planes are used for the check delivery, and what effect
that would have on twin prices.... A lot of 310s just lost their
jobs.

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:26:59 -0500, "Greg Butler"
> wrote:

>I have been hearing about this new law that allows banks to transmit check
>electronically instead of having to actually deliver the checks.
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041012/bs_usatoday/sandrablockyourmoneynewlawmeanschecksmayclearorbou ncefaster
>Is this going to destroy the check-delivering business that some pilots are
>employed by? Looks like to me it will. Just curious about your thoughts.

Yes, it will destroy the check-delivery business. I wonder what
percentage of planes are used for the check delivery, and what effect
that would have on twin prices.... A lot of 310s just lost their
jobs.

[Ron Natalie]

John E. Carty wrote:

> Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
> process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
> businesses from bad checks :-)
>
On the other hand any checks YOU received have immediate funds availability
as well. The gov't has been tightening up the time it takes to clear checks
over the past couple of decades.

I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
my bank's web site.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
> my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
> to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
> my bank's web site.

I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[William W. Plummer]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
>>my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
>>to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
>>my bank's web site.
>
>
> I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
> of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
> I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.
It used to be that you wanted the actual canceled check back with the
signature on the back so you could use it as proof that the recipient
cashed the check. A photograph of the check wouldn't serve because the
signature must actually cause physical changes to the paper for
authenticity. BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated
checkout machines -- once you permit a digitized version of your
signature to exist, you can never refute you signature.

[Peter Duniho]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:11ebd.234388$MQ5.433@attbi_s52...
> [...] once you permit a digitized version of your signature to exist, you
> can never refute you signature.

Of course you can. If anything, the presence of digital signatures makes it
*easier* to refute your signature, not harder.

Personally, I find it amazing that a signature has remained such a
well-respected standard of authentication for so long. But the requirement
for witnesses (notary or otherwise) for certain kinds of signatures is proof
enough that the law understands that signatures are not a "gold standard".

Ultimately, any disagreement will come down to whether it's believable that
you did or not not sign a particular document that you claim to or claim not
to have signed. The presence of a signature does not in and of itself
constitute proof, nor does the existence of a digitized version of your
signature affect that.

It amazes me that an MIT graduate would claim that it does.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:11ebd.234388$MQ5.433@attbi_s52...
> BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated checkout machines --
> once you permit a digitized version of your signature to exist, you can
> never refute you signature.

But anyone who has your physical signature can trivially scan it to create a
digitized version. (That's how I get instructors' signatures into my
all-electronic logbook, for instance.)

--Gary

[Ron Natalie]

William W. Plummer wrote:
>
> It used to be that you wanted the actual canceled check back with the
> signature on the back so you could use it as proof that the recipient
> cashed the check. A photograph of the check wouldn't serve because the
> signature must actually cause physical changes to the paper for
> authenticity. BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated
> checkout machines -- once you permit a digitized version of your
> signature to exist, you can never refute you signature.

The CHECK21 law provides the legal basis for a properly produced
substitute check to be used where the real cancelled check could
have been used. What constitutes legal signature has been broadened
to other than ink on paper for some time now.

What makes you think your signature hasn't been digitized even
when you limit it to paper? As a matter of fact, it's almost
certain that is has been in today's banking system.

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> But anyone who has your physical signature can trivially scan it to create a
> digitized version. (That's how I get instructors' signatures into my
> all-electronic logbook, for instance.)

Does this mean that P-51 time is now Photoshop 5.1 time (in lieu of Parker 51).

[Jay Honeck]

> On the other hand any checks YOU received have immediate funds
> availability
> as well.

I hope this is true.

My bank has changed hands FOUR times since 1997. Each time, their check
handling has gotten ever slower. It is at the point now where deposits take
up to 7 days to "hit" my account -- which I find to be totally unacceptable.

If this law changes that, it is an excellent change.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My coal-mining/textile manufacturing parents prepared me by insuring I
> went
> to school.

You had excellent parents. I know an awful lot of guys back in my hometown
who thought they'd be working at the Clausen Works (J.I. Case's tractor
plant -- at one time, the world's largest) until they died.

The Clausen Works now sits entirely vacant.

Education is the key.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

deposits take
> up to 7 days to "hit" my account -- which I find to be totally
unacceptable.
>
> If this law changes that, it is an excellent change.
> --
> Jay Honeck


And you are still with them, why?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004

[Jim Fisher]

"Robert B." > wrote in message .
>>
>>>> Y'all ain't getting it.
>>
>> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
>> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Fisher
>
> Jim,
>
> Actually, what you're referring to has nothing to do with the new law.
> The
> new law was written post-911 when the grounding of all the aircraft
> prevented a lot of checks from being transferred to the appropriate banks.
> The new law gives electronic copies of checks the same validity as the
> physical check. It allows a receiving bank to electronically transmit
> your
> check to your bank for payment. It still takes a bit for the check to
> make
> it to the first bank, then scan it in, and do the transaction with your
> bank.
>
> What you're talking about is done by several stores now. The device that
> the check is run thru does not scan the whole check, but only the numbers
> along the bottom of the check. What you're basically authorizing is an
> electronic funds transfer from your bank to the store just as if you used
> an
> electronic bank card. You're not required to allow this, you can ask the
> store to accept the written check instead of going the transfer route.

I see what you are saying and that agrees with
http://www.windowsfs.com/articles.asp?ID=425

But this stuff has been publicized as a "new" technology. I saw it in
Popular Mechanics so it must be true.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jay Honeck]

> And you are still with them, why?

Inertia.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Butler]

> >Y'all ain't getting it.
> >
> >This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> >seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> 2 or 3 years ago, my wife and I had this done at 1 place, 1 time.
> Perhaps it was a test, the situation has never repeated. This is
> Greenville SC. We use a credit union, so it was not a bank test
> restricted to the store and us using the same bank.
>
> I've wondered about it since, and wish I could remember where it was.
>

What you are talking about here has nothing to do with the new law, thats
just an electronic transfer. The new law has to do with transferring your
check from the bank where it is deposited to your home bank via electronic
media.

[OtisWinslow]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Y'all ain't getting it.
>
> This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
> seconds, then gives you back your original check.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Not true. You're confusing it with an ACH transaction. Check 21 authorizes
banks
to distribute funds based on a transmitted image of the check instead of the
actual
paper check.

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> My bank has changed hands FOUR times since 1997. Each time, their check
> handling has gotten ever slower. It is at the point now where deposits take
> up to 7 days to "hit" my account -- which I find to be totally unacceptable.
>
> If this law changes that, it is an excellent change.

Your bank is already in violation. Since 1990 the rule has been five days
for non-local checks, two days for local checks, and the next day for certain
other checks (like cashiers, certified, and government checks) for funds to
be available plus another day for cash withdrawl.

While check21 doesn't necessarily shorten these time limits, most banks make
the funds available as they are cleared, and shortened clearing times will
result in an improvement in the accessibility.

Of course, my bank (as many do) will compute interest on the date of actual
deposit, even if the funds aren't available. Of course I'm getting less than
a percent on my checking account these days anyhow.

[Roger]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:12:04 -0500, Gary G
> wrote:

>I've heard that it will impact it.
>However, much like having a job in textiles or
>other commodity manufactured goods, times change
>and people lost their jobs to overseas.
>
>This new one is due to technology.
>There are very talented software people losing there
>jobs to South Asia.

This is a strange one. I know of people losing jobs to South Asia, yet
we have shortages of programmers in some areas.

Having retired from the industry not all that long ago, we were
running up against the inability to bring in enough qualified
programmers to fill spots.

Programming is a highly mobile job and the programmers have to be
willing to relocate. Not only relocate, but to do it quite often.

On top of that, programming is "grunt work". In *most* cases you work
to a specification, in a team with your work assigned. It is very
long hours of tedious work.

Been there, done that, got paid, but they didn't even give me a
t-shirt.

I see the check hauling in pretty much the same light. With progress
it falls by the wayside. Hopefully there will be something else. I
could not understand why they kept doing it for the last 10 to 15
years.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I hate to see folks lose their jobs!
>But people do have to read the tea leaves and
>prepare for the future.
>My coal-mining/textile manufacturing parents prepared me by insuring I went
>to school.
>Sometimes the window seems like only months or a few years!

[Roger]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:19:39 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>John E. Carty wrote:
>
>> Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
>> process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
>> businesses from bad checks :-)
>>
>On the other hand any checks YOU received have immediate funds availability
>as well. The gov't has been tightening up the time it takes to clear checks
>over the past couple of decades.
>
>I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
>my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
>to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
>my bank's web site.

I have not received a canceled paper check, or the image of one in
over 20 years. I can bring up my account and view the account
activity. I also receive a summary at the end of each month, but I
never see the check again after it leaves my hands.

Electronic transfers have been available for quite a few years and
that made me wonder about the route of the canceled checks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:20:46 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
>news:11ebd.234388$MQ5.433@attbi_s52...
>> [...] once you permit a digitized version of your signature to exist, you
>> can never refute you signature.
>
>Of course you can. If anything, the presence of digital signatures makes it
>*easier* to refute your signature, not harder.
>
>Personally, I find it amazing that a signature has remained such a
>well-respected standard of authentication for so long. But the requirement
>for witnesses (notary or otherwise) for certain kinds of signatures is proof
>enough that the law understands that signatures are not a "gold standard".
>
>Ultimately, any disagreement will come down to whether it's believable that
>you did or not not sign a particular document that you claim to or claim not
>to have signed. The presence of a signature does not in and of itself
>constitute proof, nor does the existence of a digitized version of your
>signature affect that.
>
>It amazes me that an MIT graduate would claim that it does.

The only problem with that logic is once your written checks go
through the system and are scanned you digital signature already
exists. It is virtually impossible to prevent your signature from
being digitized. If you signed to get a credit card it is in the
system even if you have never used one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Pete
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
I have not received a canceled paper check, or the image of one in
over 20 years
<<

I get them every month (but my bank is changing over). When I get cancelled
checks, I HAVE THEM. Nobody can charge me for the privilege of looking at them
or using them as evidence. It's not something I want to give up.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Kyler Laird]

Thought of y'all when I saw this today.
Mary Ann Francis, National City senior vice
president and manager of global trade and
treasury, will discuss Check 21 which was
signed into law by President Bush last
October. Check 21 is short for the "Check
Clearing for the 21st Century Act. "Simply
put, beginning on October 28 of this year,
banks may begin to replace the original
check with a substitute check after it has
been cleared using image exchange.
I didn't attend the teleseminar.

Of course I saw this when I was checking on some money that I
had *electronically* tranferred to my brokerage account. It
takes a *week* to do that! (OTOH, my credit union does not
issue any holds for checks deposited into my account.)

Three Aztecs moved to our field not long ago to haul checks.
I feel sorry for the pilots/owners but I think hauling checks
is a horrible use of resources. (It's a notch below flying
to lunch.) Maybe there will be some spare parts available
for me soon...

--kyler

[Greg Butler]

> I feel sorry for the pilots/owners but I think hauling checks
> is a horrible use of resources. (It's a notch below flying
> to lunch.)

Guess the banks who pay interest on those checks didnt think so.

[OtisWinslow]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:L92bd.29581$_a3.5508@fed1read05...
> Stores have been doing that around here for a few years.. works like a
> debit card at that point.. instantly removed from your account.. no
> float..
>
> BT
>

Not totally true. It's just submitted as an ACH (Automated Clearing House)
transaction
and not a paper one. Only a debit card can access your account real time.
You could
have nothing in your account and the ACH would be accepted at the store. And
the
transaction would then bounce when posted.

Here's more on Check 21:

http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/ckclear1002.htm

[Robert M. Gary]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
> > my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
> > to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
> > my bank's web site.
>
> I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
> of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
> I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)

Most banks now will let you download the scanned copy on line. The $5
charge is usually only if you need a certified copy for court.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...

> Of course I saw this when I was checking on some money that I
> had *electronically* tranferred to my brokerage account. It
> takes a *week* to do that! (OTOH, my credit union does not
> issue any holds for checks deposited into my account.)
=
My broker is the same way. Transfers take forever and getting a check
from a stock sale takes weeks. I'm sure they are just making money on
the float. What in the world would they be waiting for after selling
stocks that they hold the certs for?
-Robert

[Joe Morris]

"Greg Butler" > writes:

>Right, what I was talking about was the new law that makes an electronic
>copy of the check just as legal as the original, thus eliminating the need
>for delivery of cancelled checks.

You're referring to "CHECK21", the short name for the legislation formally
titled "Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act". As noted elsewhere in
this thread the main impact of this act is to allow a paper check to be
converted to an electronic image at any point in its travel within the
banking system.

Unfortunately, what you (as the customer of your bank) receive with
your monthly statement isn't necessarily as good as a real, paper
check. Some banks are returning to you documents formally called
"substitute checks", but others are merely giving you images that have
little legal significance if you have a dispute.

It's easy to tell the difference. The law is specific about a document
described as a "subsitute check":

* It must accurately represent all of the information on the front
and back of the original check as of the time the original
check was "truncated" (i.e., converted to an image)
[section 4(b)(1)(2003) of the Check21 Act]

* It must contain a legend stating "This is a legal copy of your
check. You can use it the same way you would use the original
check" [section 4(b)(2)]

As far as I can tell, an image that is not a substitute check has no
intrinsic legal standing, although I would expect that for typical
routine transactions a merchant would probably want to accept such
an image as proof as long as there is no suggestion of fraud.

Banks that don't routinely provide you with substitute checks can charge
you whatever they want should you need one.

What's more, the banks are required to retain the images for only
seven years, and can (and probably will) destroy the files after
that time. There is no requirement that they have any mechanism
to obtain substitute checks after that point, regardless of the
customer's need to prove a payment, nor any requirement that the
customer be able to bulk-download the images.

Good references:

http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiatives/content/check21_content.html
http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/ckclear1002.htm

Joe Morris

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Kyler Laird > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Of course I saw this when I was checking on some money that I
> > had *electronically* tranferred to my brokerage account. It
> > takes a *week* to do that! (OTOH, my credit union does not
> > issue any holds for checks deposited into my account.)
> =
> My broker is the same way. Transfers take forever and getting a check
> from a stock sale takes weeks. I'm sure they are just making money on
> the float. What in the world would they be waiting for after selling
> stocks that they hold the certs for?
> -Robert

Brokers do not issue stock certificates, or guarantee socks, or pay out from
stock sales. (as I understand it) That is all done under contract by a
couple large firms that do nothing but that. The holdup probably lies with
them.

I found this all out from my daughter's boyfriend, who works for one such
firm.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004