I don't personally, but there's lots of accounts in these comments about systems in other countries that have free or nearly free near-instant wire transfers provided bank account number and name. Charities soliciting donations include their account number in ads. If you don't have a bank account you can make a deposit into the account at the post office. It doesn't get much simpler.
> Also, many banks now allow cashing photos of checks.
Yeah, but until you can "sign" an image of a cheque and email it to the recipient - and I'm not sure if that'd be technically a valid legal cheque in the U.S. - a physical copy must exist at some point.
> I don't personally, but there's lots of accounts in these comments about systems in other countries that have free or nearly free near-instant wire transfers provided bank account number and name. Charities soliciting donations include their account number in ads.
This is currently expensive with american banks because use of checks is so wide spread - that might work.
> If you don't have a bank account you can make a deposit into the account at the post office. It doesn't get much simpler.
I guess.... and yet, I prefer checks for A) having something physical to document, B) being able to give people non-cash physical money. I guess something like a cashiers check would also serve this purpose, and C) avoid using online banking software, which is atrocious. I can't use more than 10 characters per password, and my default one is 26 characters. I don't trust billion dollar companies with securing my banking information. If people want to take my money, they'll have to make an effort and go through my trash.
Yes, I do. Checks are a more tried and true technology, for one, and check verification is a relatively open technology; we know it's weaknesses. On the other hand, there is no guarantee passwords are even hashed, that backend communication is encrypted, that the horrendous security questions allow easy access to anyone who knows my mother's maiden name (which is a matter of public record). Finally, I can chargeback/cancel/reverse checks, which require a physical item, but though the web interface I can initialize a on-reversable wire transfer.
So I do trust cheques more, and I have more options if a bad check is charged.
I'm not sure a physical copy actually has to exist anymore, with the Check21 regulation a digitized copy containing the relevant information is considered to be the same thing as a physical check. I don't think there's anything in the regulation that would prohibit a consumer from creating the digitized version themselves. Now getting a bank to accept it from an untrusted source (a customer) as opposed from another bank might be hard.
Hm... this isn't very scientific, but I've read through a bunch of Wikipedia articles on the topic and nothing says explicitly this will be possible. Everything appears to be written under the assumption that a physical check exists to begin the process, and the article on substitute checks [2] explicitly refers to a "digital reproduction of an original paper check." Maybe someone who knows the actual regulation can chime in.
I don't personally, but there's lots of accounts in these comments about systems in other countries that have free or nearly free near-instant wire transfers provided bank account number and name. Charities soliciting donations include their account number in ads. If you don't have a bank account you can make a deposit into the account at the post office. It doesn't get much simpler.
> Also, many banks now allow cashing photos of checks.
Yeah, but until you can "sign" an image of a cheque and email it to the recipient - and I'm not sure if that'd be technically a valid legal cheque in the U.S. - a physical copy must exist at some point.