1

(Crossposted from !cash)

There are over 7000 unbanked pensioners & people on disability. These people are important to everyone retaining the freedom to be unbanked -- to not be forced into that shitty marketplace. Once they are eliminated, banks will have no competitive pressure to offer good service.

Normally they get paid by postal orders which can then be cashed. The postal orders are being replaced by cheques, which apparently includes a new requirement that they personally travel to the bank or post office to cash it. Some of them will be screwed by their lack of mobility unless they can handle managing a bank account.

If they resist the bank account, they apparently don’t simply get a cheque instead. They must explain why they cannot open a bank account. What if they refuse on moral grounds? Will that be an acceptable excuse?

This is the 16th paragraph translated to English:

** Even the circular check would not be guaranteed for people with disabilities? **

As with pensioners without a bank account, the payment of disability benefits to persons who do not have a personal account number should be made automatically by circular cheque. However, everything is not so simple, as we are explained on the side of the National Superior Council of Persons with Disabilities (CSNPH). "There is the possibility of the circular cheque, but the person must motivate the fact that she still requests a circular cheque and she must explain why she cannot open a bank account," says Gisèle Marlière, the President of the Council, based on the information she received from the Directorate General People with Disabilities. Who's gonna evaluate? What criteria? These are as many questions as we ask ourselves on the CSNPH side. And worrying about a "discreationary" process. The CSNPH Chair is also surprised at the difference in treatment compared to pensioners without bank account.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

The cheque circulaire isn't offered since 2010, that's explained at the bottom of the current fees.

Circular cheques are still being used. I just received one. The articles you link say that the circular cheques will remain when the postal orders are eliminated.

Your links were quite helpful. This looks like the most relevant bit for answering my question (from this article):

(en translation)

…According to the office of the Minister of Public Action and Modernization, Vanessa Matz was able, via the circular cheque, to guarantee a concrete and free cash alternative for the most vulnerable. In particular, this measure concerns those who do not have access to banking services or who are isolated. Neither circular cheques nor prepaid cards will be billed to beneficiaries, says the firm on Tuesday.

(fr original)

…Selon le cabinet de la ministre l’Action et de la Modernisation publiques, Vanessa Matz a pu, via le chèque circulaire, garantir une alternative cash concrète et gratuite pour les plus vulnérables. Cette mesure concerne en particulier ceux qui n’ont pas accès aux services bancaires ou qui sont isolés. Ni les chèques circulaires ni les cartes prépayées ne seront facturés aux bénéficiaires, précise le cabinet mardi.

That seems to explain what I was misunderstanding. I thought if the fee for cheque cashing is going away, perhaps so are the cheques. That would be very disturbing but that’s not the case. Apparently the 4€ fee is going away.🎉 I believe that fee was always illegal. Glad something was done about it.

Remaining question: how does a postal order differ from a circular cheque? What do we lose when postal orders go away? AFAICT, they function the same. This article seems to say circular cheques require movement -- going to a bank or post office to cash it, which is a problem for some handicaps. But I don’t get why that would not be the case with a postal order as well. How does a postal order get converted to cash? Is it perhaps about showing ID? Is it a case where a family member could cash a postal order for their grandparent, but not a cheque?

5

There are over 7000 unbanked pensioners & people on disability. These people are important to everyone retaining the freedom to be unbanked -- to not be forced into that shitty marketplace. Once they are eliminated, banks will have no competitive pressure to offer good service.

Normally they get paid by postal orders which can then be cashed. The postal orders are being replaced by cheques, which apparently includes a new requirement that they personally travel to the bank or post office to cash it. Some of them will be screwed by their lack of mobility unless they can handle managing a bank account.

If they resist the bank account, they apparently don’t simply get a cheque instead. They must explain why they cannot open a bank account. What if they refuse on moral grounds? Will that be an acceptable excuse?

This is the 16th paragraph translated to English:

** Even the circular check would not be guaranteed for people with disabilities? **

As with pensioners without a bank account, the payment of disability benefits to persons who do not have a personal account number should be made automatically by circular cheque. However, everything is not so simple, as we are explained on the side of the National Superior Council of Persons with Disabilities (CSNPH). "There is the possibility of the circular cheque, but the person must motivate the fact that she still requests a circular cheque and she must explain why she cannot open a bank account," says Gisèle Marlière, the President of the Council, based on the information she received from the Directorate General People with Disabilities. Who's gonna evaluate? What criteria? These are as many questions as we ask ourselves on the CSNPH side. And worrying about a "discreationary" process. The CSNPH Chair is also surprised at the difference in treatment compared to pensioners without bank account.

3
submitted 4 days ago by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/belgique@jlai.lu

(crossposted in !french and !belgium)

The postal service offers two services:

  • cheque cashing
  • bill paying service to pay cash on bills that require payment by bank transfer

The French → English machine translation is so poor I have little understanding of what fees are for what service.

The heading of the current fees mentions “chèque circulaire”, which seems to be missing from the new fee schedule. Is cheque cashing service ending?

What services are gratis with the the SPF branches?

IIUC, it looks like paying a bill that comes from a creditor who holds a bPost account is €1.15, and /up to/ €4 for creditors who bank elsewhere. And in a month, it will be a flat €4 in all cases. Is that correct?

2
submitted 6 days ago by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/Law@europe.pub

A consumer protection agency advises individual consumers to take legal action against an anti-competitive enterprise. This seems really off to me. Is the advice good? I would generally expect either the government to prosecute anti-competitive corporations or perhaps other corporations who are damaged by the anti-competitive practice. Consumers are damaged of course, but for one consumer to ad-hoc “take a hit for the team” and sue essentially ensures a “diffusion of responsibility” where no one wants to finance a case that costs more than it’s worth to the individual.

1

(crossposted in !french)

The postal service offers two services:

  • cheque cashing
  • bill paying service to pay cash on bills that require payment by bank transfer

The French → English machine translation is so poor I have little understanding of what fees are for what service.

The heading of the current fees mentions “chèque circulaire”, which seems to be missing from the new fee schedule. Is cheque cashing service ending?

What services are gratis with the the SPF branches?

IIUC, it looks like paying a bill that comes from a creditor who holds a bPost account is €1.15, and /up to/ €4 for creditors who bank elsewhere. And in a month, it will be a flat €4 in all cases. Is that correct?

1

The postal service offers two services:

  • cheque cashing
  • bill paying service to pay cash on bills that require payment by bank transfer

The French → English machine translation is so poor I have little understanding of what fees are for what service.

The heading of the current fees mentions “chèque circulaire”, which seems to be missing from the new fee schedule. Is cheque cashing service ending?

What services are gratis with the the SPF branches?

IIUC, it looks like paying a bill that comes from a creditor who holds a bPost account is €1.15, and /up to/ €4 for creditors who bank elsewhere. And in a month, it will be a flat €4 in all cases. Is that correct?

5
submitted 1 week ago by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/Law@europe.pub

I am getting quite mixed results with speaking English in court.

Some court clerks tell me speaking English in court will be disaster -- that non-French speakers must hire an interpretter who is certified for court. Cannot bring a friend for this purpose. Even social interpretters who work gratis in a public service capacity are useless for court proceedings. Certified interpretters tend to charge €200/hour (more than some lawyers).

A clerk who works for a particular judge said “the judge is not hard and will speak English”. And it turned out to be true. There was no resistence to English.

In another situation, the judge/magistrate/mediator (not sure which) spoke to me in low near-whisper and said they are not supposed to speak English, but then spoke English, somewhat insinuating/implying that it was a favor to me.

Another situation: a judge/magistrate/mediator/lawyer (no idea what capacity) said it’s a French process and French will be spoken. I was sure I would be stuffed if I knew zero French. Using my dysfunctional French seemed to be essential for things to move forward but slowed down the discussion to a point where they conceeded and spoke English briefly at moments then went back to French.

Someone with no legal background said (with confidence) that if you do not speak the official language of the court, judges actually have an obligation to speak to you in your language if they can. Of course if a civil court judge cannot speak your language, you’re naturally stuffed.

So in Belgium, clerks are in contradiction, rumors are in contradiction, and actual experiences are inconsistent.

3

Belfius:

  • “ATM”s are cashless (iow, no proper ATMs. But at least you know you are not trapped on a closed-source app running on your own assets. A new Belgian law is under consideration to force all banks to have a way to print paper statements - but of course it could fail)

BNP Parabas:

  • no ATMs

bPost:

  • nannied ATM limit (€650) -- unless their ATMs give their own customers better treatment

Ing:

  • no ATMs
  • forced app (closed-source, starts next month)
  • app detects emulated platforms and refuses to run (likely also refuses to run on FOSS platforms like LineageOS and ultimately forces periodic purchases of new proprietary hardware)

Aion/UniCredit:

  • no ATMs
  • forced app (closed-source)

KBC:

  • nannied ATM limit (€620) -- unless KBC ATMs give their own customers better treatment

Why it’s wise to avoid the ATM-less banks

In Belgium, you have no possible way to get proof of balance from an ATM not operated by your own bank. Proof of balance is important in some legal proceedings. Otherwise you are trapped on their platform which produces a full statement of account (thus over exposure).

Your ATM transactions are needlessly shared with an extra 3rd-party. This creates another point of nannying and surveillance. WRT nannying, it means that your limits become the lesser of your bank’s limit and the ATM operator’s limit. And of course with the extra surveillance, your GDPR data minimisation rights are undermined through the extra info sharing.

Ethics: there is an ethical problem with supporting banks that have a hand in ATM enshitification and reduced availability of ATMs.

The ATM shit-show due to outsourcing to Batopin/Bancontact (“CASH”) ATMs means if a touchy AI algorithm falsely detects fraud, your card is confiscated by an ATM the bank does not directly control (thus you are exposed to finger pointing between the bank and ATM operator). Your bank will charge you a card replacement fee if an ATM operated by someone else confiscates the card. ATM operators are not accountable for false confiscations so no incentive for the AI algo to be smart.

3
submitted 1 week ago by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/Law@europe.pub

Investigation needed.. but apparently the English and German versions of a directive materially differ. And it might explain why many German ATMs do not give receipts.

Is it safe to assume the original version of an EU directive is in English?

2

I previously mentioned was surprised to see that many ATMs in Germany do not give receipts. Some have printers (indicated by output slots) but no receipt is offered, and other machines don’t even have the slot where a receipt can be dispensed. I thought it was bizarre and perhaps unlawful.

Well now I seem to have stumbled into a law that requires ATMs to give receipts:

(o) cash withdrawal services offered by means of ATM by providers, acting on behalf of one or more card issuers, which are not a party to the framework contract with the customer withdrawing money from a payment account, on condition that those providers do not conduct other payment services as referred to in Annex I. Nevertheless the customer shall be provided with the information on any withdrawal charges referred to in Articles 45, 48, 49 and 59 before carrying out the withdrawal as well as on receipt of the cash at the end of the transaction after withdrawal.

It’s written in a weird place -- in a section of those excluded from the scope of the law, but then it makes an exception inside that paragraph and the wording is a bit shitty. It seems to say the ATM must give you transaction info after withdrawing your cash. It does not say the info must be on a durable medium. However, the info is not printed on the screen after getting the cash either, so German ATMs are non-compliant nonetheless.

Caveat: that law only applies if it has been transposed into German law from the directive. Considering the weird writing of the law, it’s perhaps likely that the Germans did not transpose it as it is.

3

Machine translation of legal statutes is always quite rough, so whenever I find a potentially professionally translated bit of law it’s greatly useful. The link goes to an English version of Belgian banking law, but the damn “Download” link for the PDF is so enshitified I cannot get it to work in either Chromium or FF based browsers.

Anyone able to get that file?

6
submitted 2 weeks ago by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/Law@europe.pub

Various hosts in the *.europa.eu domain have block Tor, and some do not. Tor users have always had access to legal statutes, which IMO is the most important most basic info to have access to. Today this host suddenly demands execution of several 3rd-party JavaScript programs. And if you give up and let that shit run, it just pushes a 403 error anyway.

They are likely targeting Tor users for this discrimination but we cannot know for certain because the 403 page they throw back at us gives no information.

This is the site:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

We really need an open data law that prohibits having access restrictions on the law itself (the statutes) -- especially if it’s arbitrary and undocumented/non-transparent.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 43 points 2 years ago

In Brussels there is a library that’s “open” as late as 22:00. There’s an after hours program where you register for after hours access, sign an agreement, and your library card can be used to unlock the door. Staff is gone during off hours but cameras are on. Members are not allowed to enter with non-members (can’t let anyone tailgate you incl. your friends).

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Love this tool!

original:

CloudFlare is a vigilante extremist organization that takes the decentralized web and centralizes it under one corporate power who dictates terms in the world's largest walled-garden. A very large portion of the web (16.7%+) were once freely open to all but are now controlled and monitored by a single central authority who decides for everyone who may access what web content. This does serious damage to net neutrality, privacy, and has immediate serious consequences

more passionate:

CloudFlare is a ruthless and oppressive entity that viciously strips away the freedom and decentralization of the web, consolidating power under one heartless corporation. This monstrous force dictates the terms of our online existence, trapping us within the confines of the world's largest walled-garden. A staggering percentage of the once free and open web (16.7% and growing) now falls under the iron fist of this tyrannical authority, controlling and monitoring every aspect of our online experiences. This egregious violation of net neutrality and privacy rights has dire and immediate consequences, threatening the very essence of our digital freedom and autonomy. Our voices are being silenced, our choices limited, and our rights trampled upon by this merciless oppressor. It is time to rise up and fight against this injustice with all our might, before it's too late.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don’t get why my fellow pirates try so hard to justify what they’re doing. We want something and we don’t want to pay the price for it because it’s either too expensive or too difficult, so we go the cheaper, easier route. And because these are large corporations trying to fuck everyone out of every last dime, we don’t feel guilt about it.

Justification is important to those who act against unethical systems. You have to separate the opportunists from the rest. An opportunist will loot any defenseless shop without the slightest sense of ethics. That’s not the same group as those who either reject an unjust system or specifically condemn a particular supplier (e.g. Sony, who is an ALEC member and who was caught unlawfully using GPL code in their DRM tools). Some would say it’s our ethical duty to do everything possible to boycott, divest, and punish Sony until they are buried.

We have a language problem that needs sorting. While it may almost¹ be fair enough to call an opportunist a “pirate” who engages in “piracy”, these words are chosen abusively as a weapon against even those who practice civil disobedience against a bad system.

  1. I say /almost/ because even in the simple case of an opportunistic media grab, equating them with those who rape and pillage is still a bit off (as RMS likes to mention).

I think you see the same problem with the thread title that I do - it’s clever but doesn’t really give a solid grounds for ethically driven actions. But it still helps to capture the idea that paying consumers are getting underhandedly deceptively stiffed by crippled purchases, which indeed rationalizes civil disobedience to some extent.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 27 points 2 years ago

Among the primary benefits: no commute, flexible work schedules and less time getting ready for work, according to WFH Research.

They forgot: being able to secretly simultaneously work 3 full-time overlapping jobs to triple your income.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

More fun to mention 11 “states” at a 5.1% uninsured cutoff, because number 11 is Peurto Rico -- a US territory that you might expect to be less developed. Since people are forced to run javascript to see the list, I’ll copy it here up to the 6% point:

  1. Massachusetts
  2. District of Columbia
  3. Hawaii
  4. Vermont
  5. Iowa (what’s a red state doing here?)
  6. Rhode Island
  7. Minnesota
  8. New Hampshire
  9. Michigan
  10. New York
  11. Puerto Rico
  12. Connecticut
  13. Pennsylvania
  14. Wisconsin
  15. Kentucky (what’s a red state doing here?)
  16. Delaware
  17. Ohio (what’s a red state doing here? OH will worsen over time; to be fair they only recently became solidly red)
  18. West Virginia

(22) California (6.5%.. worse than we might expect for CA)

(52) Texas ← ha! Of course Texass is last. 16.6% uninsured in the most notable red state showing us how to take care of people

The general pattern is expected.. the bottom of the list is mostly red states.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 25 points 2 years ago

Can’t read the article (Cloudflare blockade).

In principle there needs to be pushback on the power of defaults for sure. Yes, all the options are shit anyway, but that’s in part due to the #powerOfDefaults.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 26 points 2 years ago

I wonder if the 2024 diesel Volvos will become high-value collector’s items. There’ll always be that niche of hobbyists who refine their own biodiesel from waste oil.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 82 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

“The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”

That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.

#fuckCars in general.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 32 points 2 years ago

Indeed. What happened with cars in the US is an “arms race” on the road. Everyone wants to be in the bigger car so they just get bigger and bigger and reach a point where that e=mc² equation is pegged.

max selfishness → max energy

As expected, right-wing U.S. republicans disproportionately drive big cars. While liberals tend to favor small cars or bicycles.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 25 points 2 years ago

It was certainly a click bait headline. But still a fair point that train fare averages are double airfare. Although we have to question, did Greenpeace throw out the outliers before compiling the stats?

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 43 points 2 years ago

Gender is somewhat relevant here-- according to my women studies course in uni. When women are describing a problem, they don’t usually want solutions. They want support, understanding, & sympathy, contrary to the typical male response which is to give advice & propose solutions, which then has a good chance of ending badly.

view more: next ›

ciferecaNinjo

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF