Ah. Well, that’s not how I intended it to be read. Read “multi-party” instead of “shared”, then.
(This is a side point, but no, they’re not your delegate. It’s not even your money anymore; the bank is just your debtor. Banks have always placed restrictions on what you can do with your balance, including placing controls on withdrawals, many required by law. You can find entities for whom this is less true, but they’re regulated differently and more expensive. That’s not the relationship you signed up for.)
If banks are allowed to arbitrarily decide they don’t need to make good on their debts to me because they’re involved in those debts, that’s a very strong argument that the laws around this are broken.
They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt, but that isn’t the topic of discussion here. They are allowed and in fact required to have a variety of controls on the manner and mechanisms with which they discharge said debt, and pretty much everyone is in favor of this, broadly construed. You just don’t like this particular control.
This is not a required control, at least in many jurisdictions.
It’s also a particularly onerous control, making it effectively impossible to use hardware not under the control of American cartels. If the USA were to behave poorly on the international stage (inconceivable, I’m sure), this may cause problems for people outside of the USA. This seems rather unwise from a digital sovereignty perspective.
Edit, also:
They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt
If they’re allowed to impose arbitrary barriers, they can dodge making good on their debt indefinitely, which is approximately equivalent.
Whether it’s a “required” control depends on how you interpret broad requirements to have concrete measures to minimize consumer risk. E.g. the EU requires payment service providers to “adopt security measures […] to mitigate the risk which would result from that multi-purpose device [i.e. phone] being compromised”. Regulators don’t generally get more specific than that, but tend to get annoyed if there’s widely used measures you could take but are choosing not to.
But this is beside the point, because again, mobile banking is strictly a convenience measure that banks are not required to provide at all. Yes, if they cut off all ways to do withdrawals or to move money to another bank this would allow them to avoid their obligations to you, but it doesn’t follow that they have to offer every method to every customer.
Ah. Well, that’s not how I intended it to be read. Read “multi-party” instead of “shared”, then.
(This is a side point, but no, they’re not your delegate. It’s not even your money anymore; the bank is just your debtor. Banks have always placed restrictions on what you can do with your balance, including placing controls on withdrawals, many required by law. You can find entities for whom this is less true, but they’re regulated differently and more expensive. That’s not the relationship you signed up for.)
score 1 · canonical
If banks are allowed to arbitrarily decide they don’t need to make good on their debts to me because they’re involved in those debts, that’s a very strong argument that the laws around this are broken.
score 1 · canonical
They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt, but that isn’t the topic of discussion here. They are allowed and in fact required to have a variety of controls on the manner and mechanisms with which they discharge said debt, and pretty much everyone is in favor of this, broadly construed. You just don’t like this particular control.
score 1 · canonical
This is not a required control, at least in many jurisdictions.
It’s also a particularly onerous control, making it effectively impossible to use hardware not under the control of American cartels. If the USA were to behave poorly on the international stage (inconceivable, I’m sure), this may cause problems for people outside of the USA. This seems rather unwise from a digital sovereignty perspective.
Edit, also:
If they’re allowed to impose arbitrary barriers, they can dodge making good on their debt indefinitely, which is approximately equivalent.
score 1 · canonical
Whether it’s a “required” control depends on how you interpret broad requirements to have concrete measures to minimize consumer risk. E.g. the EU requires payment service providers to “adopt security measures […] to mitigate the risk which would result from that multi-purpose device [i.e. phone] being compromised”. Regulators don’t generally get more specific than that, but tend to get annoyed if there’s widely used measures you could take but are choosing not to.
But this is beside the point, because again, mobile banking is strictly a convenience measure that banks are not required to provide at all. Yes, if they cut off all ways to do withdrawals or to move money to another bank this would allow them to avoid their obligations to you, but it doesn’t follow that they have to offer every method to every customer.
score 1 · canonical