Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all the digital communications marvels, there is still no way to send money. Let's say if my daughter is traveling, and she phones and needs $500. There is no way to send it to her. Even with PayPal, she has to go home to her bank to get it. The only way is Western Union, who charges as much as 10% fee, most offices don't have any more than $500, and they're open only on weekdays, and are no faster than they were in 1890.
There should be a way that I can instantly transfer any amount, on my PC, from my bank account, to any ATM in the USA, where seconds later, a recipient with proper access number and password, for a minimal ATM fee , can pick up the cash. Or where I can, online, swipe MY card in a distant ATM, so a recipient can get the cash just as if she had swiped it at the cash point. Why isn't there?
Its probably too easy to hack/steal something like that and probably the reason why there is still no real way to send money phone to phone or electronically.
Its probably too easy to hack/steal something like that and probably the reason why there is still no real way to send money phone to phone or electronically.
lI can't imagine why. Here's how it would work.
I go to a Pulse machine, and swipe my card, and instead of requesting immediate funds, I choose the option of "cash from another machine". It then gives me a code number, which I relay to my recipient by phone or email, who goes to any Pulse machine, enters the code, and the cash is delivered there. Perfectly simple, and no more risk of hacking than if I was getting the money from the same machine. It still requires a scan of a physical card as verification, the only difference is that the money comes out of a different machine within the same system. It would set a time limit, say 60 minutes, for the code to remain valid, so a hacker would have to be in there the same hour, to get the money delivery to activate with a false code. The banker would not be at risk for hacking, only the user, since the money has already been drawn from the senders account before the hacker can hit the receiving machine. A hacker would need to be physically at both ATMs, and could not do it from a computer.
There should be a way that I can instantly transfer any amount, on my PC, from my bank account, to any ATM in the USA, where seconds later, a recipient with proper access number and password, for a minimal ATM fee , can pick up the cash. ?
Bank of America has this process. Here is how it works.
Both parties need to have a BofA account.
Party A needs to be on the BofA online banking program. Party A can do an instant online transfer of funds (up to $1000) to party B's account from their PC or Mac.
Once done, party B takes his or her ATM card to the nearest ATM machine and using the card and PIN code withdraws the cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Or where I can, online, swipe MY card in a distant ATM, so a recipient can get the cash just as if she had swiped it at the cash point. Why isn't there?
Process two is slighly different than your scenrio. First you have BofA link your accounts via the ATM process. You can transfer funds to party B's account from any ATM machine. Party B can then withdraw the funds from any ATM.
I go to a Pulse machine, and swipe my card, and instead of requesting immediate funds, I choose the option of "cash from another machine". It then gives me a code number, which I relay to my recipient by phone or email, who goes to any Pulse machine, enters the code, and the cash is delivered there. Perfectly simple, and no more risk of hacking than if I was getting the money from the same machine. It still requires a scan of a physical card as verification, the only difference is that the money comes out of a different machine within the same system. It would set a time limit, say 60 minutes, for the code to remain valid, so a hacker would have to be in there the same hour, to get the money delivery to activate with a false code. The banker would not be at risk for hacking, only the user, since the money has already been drawn from the senders account before the hacker can hit the receiving machine. A hacker would need to be physically at both ATMs, and could not do it from a computer.
Good idea. Never thought about that. I wonder why this has not happened.
I go to a Pulse machine, and swipe my card, and instead of requesting immediate funds, I choose the option of "cash from another machine". It then gives me a code number, which I relay to my recipient by phone or email, who goes to any Pulse machine, enters the code, and the cash is delivered there. Perfectly simple, and no more risk of hacking than if I was getting the money from the same machine. It still requires a scan of a physical card as verification, the only difference is that the money comes out of a different machine within the same system. It would set a time limit, say 60 minutes, for the code to remain valid, so a hacker would have to be in there the same hour, to get the money delivery to activate with a false code. The banker would not be at risk for hacking, only the user, since the money has already been drawn from the senders account before the hacker can hit the receiving machine. A hacker would need to be physically at both ATMs, and could not do it from a computer.
uh - I think you're taking a fairly simplistic view of this. By adding a new service, you've added an additional threat vector for the criminals (not just hackers, but defrauders in general). So yes, their risk will increase. An example - now a hacker can break into the system, establish a transaction from their terminal, and setup a withdraw at an ATM of their choice; without having to setup a dummy account and wire money into it (leaving more of a trail). Not saying this is feasible (as I'm simplifying things here), but it is an additional opportunity for them.
Not saying there aren't controls to protect banks from that. But the bottom line is that any new service you provide increases the risk. The question is whether or not that risk is acceptable given the benefit it will produce. And in this case, it seems like its a very limited use scenario, given that this would only be necessary if you are trying to pass funds off to someone that has no banking relationships anywhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
