I opened an account at Wachovia bank so I wouldn't be fingerprinted and promptly withdrew all but $1. They have a promotion going that if you were referred Wachovia to a friend both you and the friend receive a $25 Visa gift certificate.

Open an account at Wachovia. My name is Evelyn Roebuck from Columbus, GA....tell them I referred you and we will both get $25. Just deposit the cash money and then withdraw all but $1 (they have free checking!). So if they jerk you around....legally jerk them around.

This happened to me this morning in NYC. I refused to leave my fingerprint with a bank. For what possible reason would you need my fingerprint? To stop fraud? Then why 2 forms of state ID? With photos? I have nothing to hide but this big brother crap has gotten out of hand. No More. This Has Got To Stop!

It's pretty funny that the thief was enough of a moron to let himself get fingerprinted.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with Chase doing what it needs to do to protect my money from somebody walking in off the street.

I suspect people flipped out like this when banks started requiring photo IDs in the first place...Then two forms if identification.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I never knew that you could change your SSN once in a lifetime.

I know it is not "supposed' to be used for any other purpose, but our SSN's are all over the place.

And I guess I'll be wearing rubber gloves from now on. Lord.

That hoary chestnut goes:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[Variants exist here: Franklin's Quotes Of course, Franklin said it many times during his life with slight variations.]

It's important to quote this correctly because Franklin did not say it is never right to give up liberty for safety. Safety and life, are after all essential liberties themselves and must be weighed against others. But to give up a fundamental liberty like privacy for an unproven and small benefit is not a wise choice.

InfiniteMonkeys, Peace out!

This lets the bank know how passionate you are about your RIGHT to privacy and how idiotic their "system" is to begin with.

Ps. I wouldn't try this at B.O.A., you may be falsely arrested or tazed or something, that bank is loco.

True story that happened to me 11/06.
The whole process took about 1 1/2 weeks.

I had two IDs including my passport. But that wasn't good enough. I asked why and they said because of the Patriot Act (Which only require SOME sort of ID)

So I asked why they needed the thumb print. They had to ask the security chief. We left and they called us to tell me that the chief said 'because'. We closed the account.

They could get into my secret lair and dis-organize my papers and redirect my death rays, duh.

If you guys are interested (and it seems like you would be), I am selling custom-made tinfoil hats at a fraction of the retail price. They block out all GPS, RFID, Short-wave, long wave, UHF/VHF, satellite, and infra-red technologies to keep what's in your brain, in your brain. Unfortunately, I require thumb prints from all my customers before I initiate a transaction with you.

as usual, the "rules" only work until the criminals they mean to catch find a way around them.

check fraud is sooo 1980's. credit card fraud is where all the action is today (& it's costing banks 100 times or more what check fraud costs them).

i could see this as a precursor for using biometrics for card purchases. now you get to give your thumbprint to every cashier at every register in america. & someone will be logging those purchases in a file searchable by print & linked to whatever other records exist out there about you.

If you are all for a DNA database and have nothing to hide - go to the police and submit your DNA, your thumbprints, and ALL your personal data. Contact the IRS and let them know they have full access to your files. FBI, CIA, NSA as well. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? And since you're all for it, you should do this to set an example, right? People should be all about it and you should be the first!

Me? Fuck that. It's not about having something to hide, it's about PRIVACY. If you're okay with everything, go ahead and post it all to your myspace profile like all these idiot kids today, and wonder why everyone has no privacy anymore.

Yes, it would be awful to have a national DNA database. Would it be so awful for the police to randomly enter your home to make sure you weren't committing crimes? Or perhaps closed circuit tvs in every room in your home? GPS on your car to know where you're going, or better yet, an ankle bracelet? Where does it end?

.....National ID legislation is coming. Get ready for it.

Ah, but if you have nothing to hide, then why are you so afraid to turn over the information that is being requested?

I guess you aren't so uncaring about that as you claim.

"Hypocrisy" is the word for that.

As to those who see misuse of fingerprints as implausible and unlikely, think back on some other things that used to be very rare and seemed silly and far-fetched: Identity theft, DMCA claims (I remember, when it passed, being told that arguments against it were 'conspiracy theories'), various spoofing and data theft, things like that. I am just a dumbass, and I'll bet that *I* could make little fingerprint pads that I could glue to my fingers so they'd mimic someone else's. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that organized criminals could use some kind of a CAM system to automate the process.

What purpose does this fingerprinting serve? Why should we? There are plenty of reasons we shouldn't. These banks have shown that they are uninterested in or incapable of protecting our private information as it is. They have made little effort to protect the information they do have. Why should we trust them now? They're one of the main reasons that our existing ID is insufficient. They already gave our information to criminals. They already put us at risk.

So the question is why? Why should we? What purpose does it serve? When banks do get fraudulent checks, they submit the fingerprint to law enforcement? OK. For what? Is it reliable? No. Bank employees aren't trained to take fingerprints, so they're not accurate. It would probably be trivial to fake. There's no chain of custody, so they're not trustworthy. Is it admissible in court? It shouldn't be. It's not reliable.

So what is it for?

Also: Do they have a policy for people who don't have arms? Do they refuse to cash their checks, do they give them a pass, or what?

Seriously, folks, this is a case of needing to choose your battles more carefully. When you hand the check over to the cashier, you automatically give up your fingerprints, unless you've been wearing gloves the whole time. You also may give up some dna, depending on how clean your hands are and where you've been keeping the check.

Don't get me wrong--I am a staunch believer in the individual's right to privacy, and I resist giving personal information to any institution or government, especially if that same body also determines whether I am indeed a law-abiding citizen. ('Cause, you know, they get to change the rules.)

Finally, according to my Oxford American Dictionary, "cheque" is "the British spelling of 'check.'" The etymological bases for each word are slightly different ("check" having been in use since the 18th century), so saying "check" is legitimate, not an example of American semi-literacy (e.g., commentate, nauseous to mean nauseated, use of enormity to indicate great size).

But since the can also CHARGE money for services and get away with it (see above "endorsement pen rental fee" I expect to see shortly), they do.

And the thumb print issue can also be used as an obstacle (by the bank) to providing a service, not in fact as fraud prevention or detection.

Personal information can be used against you. When they established Social Security, they made it absolute law that a) you could not 'require' SSN to identify someone, and b) once per lifetime, you could change your SSN.

Let's take the DNA example. Yes, it would help to catch criminals, and with recidivism high, most convicted criminals should be made to give samples, because they forfeit some rights in their breach of law. But if you, for example, for no reason were on file somewhere, then what would prevent insurance agencies from screening you for 'potential' genetic weaknesses and charging you much higher rates. What's to prevent some clever crook from just taking your hair or other sample and lacing a crime scene with it?

The NRA, with whom I have little common cause, proclaim the 2nd Amendmant essential to defend against the government's excess.

You need to understand that our founders said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance ... against the government. The government exists to provide us some common services (defense, police, commerce regulation). We do not exist to provide it with whatever it needs to make the least common denominators of politics, the politically naive, trade their essential rights in for a restful nights sleep.

I would rather lay awake and worry about strangers taking my liberty than the people I elect. However, you sleep well as you will.

HOWEVER, I'm much more surprised that your response (w/ the logic) actually worked. Most bankers or other employees would simply fall back on the standard "I don't make the rules" line.

Bottom line:
1. Stand up for all your rights whenever they're violated.
2. Use small-town banks or credit unions because they won't nickel and dime you with everything from the "entering the premises during business hours fee" to an "endorsement pen rental fee" both of which I expect to see before too long.

"I recently went into a Wachovia branch to cash a check drawn on a business account from a firm I'd done some consulting for. The amount was less than $800. I do not have an account with Wachovia, but the check was drawn on a Wachovia account. Since I was going to be making a several hundred dollar purchase that evening, and the Wachovia branch was closer to get to on my lunch break, I simply stopped there to cash my check. Not only did they refuse to cash the check without a thumbprint (even though I offered my driver's license, 2 credit cards, a social security card AND a passport as ID), they also charged me a $5 fee to CASH A CHECK DRAWN ON THEIR BANK because *I* did not have an account with them.

If that isn't a predatory practice (our checks are only good if you're our customer - otherwise how can we trust a check drawn on our own bank???) then I don't know what is.

Simply put, Wachovia is whack. I'll be avoiding them like they were Bank of America."

fast forward 18 or so years, i get in a little scuffle & end up in a jail cell. do you know they already had my fingerprints on file? that one time when i was a little kid was the only time i had ever been printed & now they have this massive computer that was able to match it almost 2 decades later, in about 2 minutes.

that scares me a little bit, b/c i don't know what else is in that file.

When A bank told me they needed my thumbprint I refused. When the manager gave me the "making sure you are you" line, I questioned if they had access to the fbi files to double check my print. She was dumbfounded and said no (ofcourse)

Then I asked her to give me HER fingerprint, because after all I wanted to make sure that whoever took posession of the check, was who they claimed to be. After I used this logic on her the simply cashed the check and sent me on my way.

Would you people complaining kick up this much fuss if the police asked for your thumbprint? I realize it's not quite the same, but sheesh...what can someone do with a freaking thumbprint?! Scan it and run it through a website, which magically gives out all personal information on you?

"Hey! That looks like Gary's thumbprint! I will print it off and use it for evil! When asked for ID, I will simply show this thumbprint I got online!"

I guess I'm wondering, if it was wrong for the Godless, Evil Commies to treat their countrymen like that, why is it OK for US to do it.

Please don't give me that "just trying to protect you" crap. Don't you think the commissars said the same thing? That's ALWAYS the excuse for a government that seeks to violate the civil rights and privacy of its citizens.

Besides, there's NO objective empirical evidence that Universal Paranoia makes a country safer.

Please name a country that treated all its citizens with suspicion prior to 9/11 that you would care to live in.

@boicraig: I agree.

facted, please feel free to provide your SSN and full name. I would like to run a credit check on you in order to ascertain whether you pay your bills on time. The information will not be used for any other purpose.

FYI, I absolutely refuse to provide any biometrics for something as inane as cashing a cheque.

Welcome to Consumerist.

You know, I would like your SSN and address. Please email it to me. Don't worry, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, i promise not to do anything bad with it.

I do marketing for a living, and I can tell you this is the way any big company works if they have a marketing division. It's not nice, it isn't convenient, it's to strong arm you into signing up with an account with you for one reason. It's because someone at their bank writes checks to you for whatever reason, and if you get an account with them too, it will be easy and not hard to cash something.

This policy of needing a fingerprint isn't required by law, but neither is it forbidden. They can do it just because they can, and often it's to screw you into opening an account with them just to eliminate the hassle factor.

Banking is big business so don't read too much into it. They want to deny you drive through options and make you give a thumb print not just for protection, but if you open account with them, then they won't make it a hassle.

Banks are greedy, they will only loan you money if you don't need it, they will only cash your check if you dance for them. All the big places do this, so unless you're doing business at the local bank of Fred, then you or you're customers are going to be in for it at one time or another.

Turns out state bank chambers are pushing this crap, and in some out-of-the-way areas sheriffs even want stores to use it for CASH PURCHASES. The excuse often used is check fraud, which is probably not primarily comprised of well-identified felons who go into banks with small, drawn-on-them checks.

I've never had to provide more than a driver's license to cash a check, so I don't see the sudden issue about needing a thumbprint.

(Alternatively, get a plastic severed thumb from a novelty shop, use that to give a thumbprint, and throw it in the bank employee's lap when you're done!)

If you're that paranoid about giving one fingerprint, go to a cash checking place and pay exorbitant fees to cash in the check. It's your choice.

Now everyone at the bank knows what my thumbprint looks like, and have been framed in several crimes.

Also, I am kidding.

ACTUALLY, it IS cheque, so hopefully you're not bashing an ally of the United States and are rather making a culturally-uninformed statement.

"cheque"

noun
1. a written order directing a bank to pay money; "he paid all his bills by check" [syn: check]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheque

Great letter!

Thanks for the effort to call them out on the lack of training.

The idea that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" assumes that the government is full of good people that would not abuse their power, ever. Would you agree?

The Constitution dictates that people have the right to privacy and 'protection from undue search and seizure' FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Although the UCC does rule here.

Do you really trust a corporation or your own government with safeguarding your dna sample and keep it from falling into the hands of criminals facted?

You have done nothing wrong now, but once the wrong person gets a hold of all that info all of a sudden you are a criminal. Do you get what I'm sayin fool?

I'm feeling saucy today facted, dont mind me.

A national DNA database is a criminals dream. No longer will he/she need to be accountable for their crimes. They could just make people like yourself accountable for their crimes because everyone said "whats the big deal?" "I have nothing to hide"

And for the "I have nothing to hide" comment -- sounds like famous last words to me.

Would it be SOOO awful if there was a national DNA database? How many crimes are committed where DNA is taken but can't be matched to anyone? What if they could all of a sudden be matched instantaneously? You're right, that would be awful to be able to catch criminals.

As for my name and address: my bank can have my information...you can't ;)

Fundamentals of freedom (i.e. the Constitution) dictate that people have the right to privacy and 'protection from undue search and seizure'. That privacy and protection extends to your personal information.

The bank has what is necessary to prove his identity. Anything more is invasive.

I'm tired of the 'what does it matter' attitude toward essential liberties. Facted, why don't you put your real name and address down so we can stop by your house?