I agree. Transferring immediately, but putting a 48 hour hold on just the first transaction for a new recipient makes a ton of sense.
2 Likes
Isnt that - placing a hold on a deposit - based on the receiving bank’s policy, not Zelle? I’m pretty sure that most banks do not place holds any electronic deposits (ACH, Wire, etc) that are pushed from other banks.
Regardless if it’s done on the front end or the back end, a longer transfer period, and therefore a longer period in which the banks/zelle have the ability to stop the transaction from getting to the scammer, seems to make sense for newly added recipients.
My point was, Zelle cannot do it on the back end. The only option they have is to delay sending the money, in which case it cannot be posted to the recieving account ‘immediately’. 8,000 individual bank policies would need to be tweaked to hold the payment after it’s posted to the recipient.
Even ADP/payroll processors have ‘early’ direct deposit prior to official payday, but it’s still on each individual bank receiving the money as to when they actually make it available to their customer.
1 Like
Post was deleted by the author.
3 Likes
I don’t see why not. The receiving bank knows the money is coming from Zelle. Make the receiving bank responsible for fraud and they’ll put a hold on the money just like they put a hold on big check deposits.
I think this would only work if everyone who accepted Zelle payments would agree to a new rule from Zelle. This could easily be forced, but …
Also, it would require IT sign-off (as in, review if it’s doable), legal review, legal amendment to user agreement, some code work to identify new recipients, code changes to communicate who is a new recipient (and subject to the new rule) to the receiving institution. You’re easily looking at a $20,000,000 expenditure.
Although banks make tons of money, they’re almost as frugal as we are. They’re not going to approve that expenditure until forced to do so, or more than likely, to get gubment funds to “protect” the public.
2 Likes
From the Washington Post:
Direct link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/24/delete-yourself-online/
Scrubbing public information from the internet is a silly, never-ending exercise. It’s too easy and too cheap to obtain public records without a reasonable permissible purpose, and then to sell it. IMO such aggregation and sale by unrelated entities should be illegal.
As the article says: “You can’t fully scrub yourself from the internet.” Unless you’re rich and own nothing in your name and are not a public figure.
ETA: I guess also if you’re broke and own nothing in your name 
1 Like
As Reason has previously reported, there are substantial constitutional issues raised by the FBI’s raid of U.S. Private Vaults that ought to worry any American concerned about privacy.
Importantly, the warrant authorizing the raid explicitly forbade the FBI from seizing the safe deposit boxes or their contents.
But agents seized hundreds of safe deposit boxes anyway, then opened many of them and rifled through their contents under the guise of cataloging the items. That effort seems to have been a little more than a fishing expedition in search of additional criminality, and attorneys for the victims of the FBI’s warrantless search are now asking that all records created by that effort be destroyed.
From the Bill of Rights:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Modest request:
Will somebody please tell the FBI!
5 Likes
I appreciate the interest in my post, above. Thanks.
I have a question on a somewhat associated (though different) matter, but something certainly related in a way to privacy.
I want to quote from a portion of the Fourth Amendment:
Here is the setup:
They enter and search your premises using a warrant legitimate and legal as to person and place. But at the end their search turns up no things named in the warrant which were to be seized, simply because no such things were ever present on the premises in the first place.
However (and here is the crux of my question):
They DO discover a problematic item or items not named in the warrant, and not even remotely or tangentially related to the warrant.
Can you nevertheless find yourself in hot water beneath those circumstances?
For the record I’m not thinking “fishing expedition” here with this inquiry. Just bad luck.
If they have a warrant specifically to search the second floor, and see something incriminating on the customary route to the second floor, it’d be actionable evidence. But if on the way to the second floor, they unnecessarily force their way into the basement and find something, that would generally be excluded as being outside the scope of the warrant. I’m pretty sure they can seize things not specified in the warrant, but they are limited on how much they can stray from the “where” part of the warrant. At least that’s been my understanding.
So yes, if the police have a warrant to search your house for a gun allegedly used in a bank robbery, and they find a young girl chained in your basement, they’re going to arrest you for kidnapping even though it’s entirely unrelated to why there were there in the first place. And if they hear cries for help coming from the basement while executing the warrant, it doesnt matter if the basement was included in the warrant or not.
1 Like
Yes, If you’ve got illegal (or possibly legal) firearms, or some other “potential” contraband, and the search warrant is specifically (unlikely) related to drugs, you’re up the proverbial creek and the prosecution will be for everything they can possibly prosecute. You then have the opportunity to negotiate. They are much like our last President … go in high, and watch 'em buy. 
1 Like
It depends what you mean by problematic. Schedule 1 narcotics aren’t problematic, they are illegal. A gun may be problematic, because it can be legal or illegal. Same with a million dollars in jewels.
2 Likes
Ooh, this is a good one. Don’t fall for it:
4 Likes
1 Like
Not quite sure what “auto save your pictures to the cloud” feature this guy had turned on when his wife used his phone to take a telehealth pic of their kids groin rash, but Google figured out he must be a sex offender, locked him out of all his accounts, and reported him to the police.
https://news.yahoo.com/dad-took-photos-naked-toddler-142928196.html
which I guess is perhaps excusable in our “think of the kids” obsessed technocracy, but when the police cleared him, of course, he still couldn’t get Google to give him his access back.
Lessons
- don’t let your wife use your phone
- don’t upload stuff to the cloud, roll your own encrypted backups
- don’t use / trust Google for email especially
4 Likes
It’s the modern day equivalent of the photo lab turning you in 
2 Likes
I think this needs to be spelled out, because it may not be intuitive – if Google decides to close your account, you’ll immediately lose access not just to your email, but also contacts, calendar, photos, saved maps, docs, drive, and everything else that belongs to Google. For most Android phone users this is catastrophic.
3 Likes
It would be if the photo lab also confiscated all of your other photos, negatives, address books, and documents from your house with no recourse.
Turning someone in for an investigation is one thing, but shutting them down with no recourse regardless of the outcome is another level. I hope he sues and wins, cause this is infuriating.
1 Like