[roenxi]

There is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money.

Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse.

All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.

[danaris]

You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?

[phil21]

This is an incredibly disengenious take.

Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop.

What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience.

This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse.

Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that.

Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.

[danaris]

It sounds to me like what you're criticizing is one particular method of addressing the problem, rather than the general idea that we need to address the problem.

It would absolutely be reasonable to continue fighting fraud by recognizing that these things can happen, and taking steps to combat them, without tilting it as far as you have seen in favor of banks essentially confiscating customer funds.

[ClumsyPilot]

Well, suppose we learnt with 100% certainty that a spesific bank account belongs to dangerous criminals - surely we should not be allowing money transfers to that account - either you are beinflg scammed, or you are financing crime on purpose.

I sympathise with your position, but you cant have people awndong money to know drug dealera and terrorists and go "oh well, its their money" either

the additional angle to consoder is that we have duty of care to vupnerable individuals - elderly pwople and children.. like if a peraon with a degree in finance is buying crypto, no questions. but if someone in their 80s is investing in crypto becauae their neighbour tols them to, thats suspicious

i am writing this as someoje who currently can't send koney to family because the whole country has been sanctioned, so,

[roenxi]

I see a the risk of some very cynical younger people who will discover that (while the loving bonds of family are all very well) they can make money by seizing their parents assets. There are some real monsters out there, especially once there is money on the line. Family courts go through horror cases on a daily basis. That risk of elder abuse is worse than scammers and much more pressing.

In this story the person in question did have their transaction questioned. Having it delayed is meaningless, there is no reason to believe a delay would have made them change their mind. This is a question of whether it is their money, the banks money or someone else's money and the correct answer is it belongs to the gentleman who is getting scammed. People will suffer less on average if we let them spend their own money as a matter of policy.