I don't know about you, but I have wondered a time or two what would happen to my online profiles such as Facebook if I should happen to die. Do they just float around in cyberspace forever, remaining exactly as I left them after my last status update, or will they eventually be cancelled for non-activity? I found an article on Time.com that answers that question.
On October 26, Max Kelly, Facebook's head of security, announced the company's policy of memorializing profiles of deceased users. The profiles are taken out of public search results, they are sealed from any future log-in attempts and their "wall" is left open for the family and friends to leave comments and pay their respects.
The company says that this has been an option since the early days of Facebook. They decided to publicize the policy after a recent criticism of the site. This was caused when a new version of the site's homepage was unveiled October 23. The new version automatically generates suggestions of friends to "reconnect" with. Almost immediately Facebook was hit with complaints from users claiming to have recieved suggestions concerning friends who had passed away.
This prompted Facebook to publicize the policy regarding users who have died in order to explain the process better. According to Kelly, a friend or family member of the deceased person needs to contact Facebook to request that the profile be memorialized. Facebook follows up by requiring proof, such as a link to an obituary, to discourage pranksters. Facebook also allows the option of deleting the profile altogether.
Maybe it's a little morbid of me, but I have wondered what happens when a Facebook user dies. If that person is the only one with the password, what then? I assumed the profile couldn't be cancelled by anyone other than the owner, and that the profile would just float around in internet archives indefinitely. I have been fortunate so far to not experience this firsthand. No one close to me has died since I was little.
I think it was smart of Facebook to publicly explain the process involved in memorializing or deleting the profile of someone who has died. The only thing I think could have been done better is to have done it a long time ago. The new updates to the homepage suggested reconnecting with those who have died and that upset some people. Understandably so. There has to be someone working for Facebook who's responsibility it is to catch things like this. I think it's unacceptable that the possibility of these "friend suggestions" was not brought to the attention of Facebook users prior to the new homepage being launched.
Which brings me to another thing that Facebook does that's kind of annoying. What's with the constant changes and "updates?" Enough already! I joined Facebook back in 2004 when it was JUST for college students and didn't have all of these extra applications and quizzes and Mafia this and Farmville that.
Why is this stuff necessary? I will say that I like a few of the changes they have made. Some things, like the status updates or Facebook mobile are okay. I'm even okay with Facebook being open to everyone now. It's kind of fun to be able to reconnect with people who aren't in college somewhere.
I also appreciate Facebook's attention to protecting the privacy of its users. So far they're doing pretty well. My only concern is that it could be on its way to becoming more like Myspace. I deleted my Myspace account a long time ago. It's become nothing more than a playground for perverts and pedophiles.
Okay, enough ranting for one day. I could go on forever about the evils of Myspace.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Consumer Reports says Toyota, Honda and Ford are the best
According to an article I found at Time.com, Ford Motor Co. is the only domestic brand to match Toyota and Honda for reliability. Ninety percent of new Ford, Mercury and Lincoln products were found to have average or better expected reliabilty. This matched and even surpassed some scores posted by Toyota and Honda and their associated brands (Acura, Lexus, etc.).
Says David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports Automotive Test Center, "It's rare for Consumer Reports to see family sedans from domestic car makers continue to beat the reliability scores of such highly regarded Japanese models as the Camry and Accord."
Officials at Ford are very happy with these results.
General Motors and Chrysler, companies that both accepted bailouts from the federal government (Ford did not), didn't do nearly as well as Ford. Not one Chrysler model made the list, with more than a third of them being labeled "much worse than average" in reliability. Only the Dodge Ram 1500 scored average. Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge (Chrysler's three brands) were among the four ranked worse in reliability.
There were a few products from GM that did well in the survey, but overall 28 of the 48 vehicles surveyed had below average ratings.
My initial reaction after reading the headline for this story was, "Of course Toyota and Honda, but Ford surprises me a little bit."
I happen to be a die hard Toyota fan. My first car was a 1987 Corolla. It treated me very well for 5 years. I hardly ever had a problem with that vehicle and it was still running great when I sold it at 230,000 miles. After that I had a 1994 Celica for 3 years and it treated me well also. In may of this year I traded that in for a new Matrix and so far, so good on my newest Toyota.
Seeing Ford mentioned in the same category as proven reliable brands like Toyota and Honda surprised me a little bit. The main reason for that is my personal experience. It seems that in many older (by older, I mean 1995 to 2005 or so, just not brand new cars) Fords there is this switch that flips at about 130,000 miles and everything starts to go wrong.
My parents had an 2001 F150 that blew the motor at 135,000 miles. My husband, who has always been a Ford driver had the same experience with a 1996 Ranger and a 2002 Taurus. Both started having multiple problems at around 130,000 miles. Maybe it's coincidence or maybe not, but it was enough to convince the husband anyway.
He has always made jokes about my "rice burner." His brother bought a Honda and got the same "rice burner" comments, all in good fun though. He said American cars were good enough and he didn't need to drive anything foreign. His dad was much the same way, and never drove anything but a Ford or Dodge.
Well, a few years ago his dad bought a new Jetta (VW is German) and slowly they both began to crack. My husband still bought the now defunct Taurus later the same year, stubborn as ever. He is the type of person who maintains a car very well, with regular oil changes and any other needed maintanence being done on time and done well, but it still had problems pretty regularly. I pointed out a time or several that, in the 3 years that we had both cars, my 1994 Celica had no issues while his 2002 Taurus was constantly needing some repair.
After a few years of fighting with the Taurus, he finally gave in and went foreign. As of this month he is the proud owner of a brand new Honda Fit. I have to say, it's kind of weird seeing him in his very own "rice burner," but he's super happy with it.
So, as far as my personal experience goes, you can probably see why I was surprised to see Ford at the top of the list of reliable vehicles. The more I thought about it though, I began to agree with the rating.
Since the other 2 of the "Big 3" accepted bailout money and Ford refused, saying they could get back on their feet with hard work, restructuring and some new ideas, Ford has really stepped up.
While Chrysler and GM remain "much worse than average" in reliability, Ford has really improved their vehicle lineup in many ways. I don't know about you, but I think that the styling is much better than in recent years. The cars are just more attractive and don't scream "boring famly sedan." Many have better MPG ratings than ever and apparently, better reliability ratings as well.
One thing still bugs me though. As close as the Toyota brand has always been to my heart and as good as my cars have treated me in the past, I'm still bothered by the fact that it's the 21st century and American auto makers are still struggling to make a reliable car that Americans want to buy. Because of poor sales, many brands have been cut from GM and Chrysler lineups. A few years ago, it was just Oldsmobile. Now Pontiac and Saturn have also been axed. What's next?
I'm glad to see that Ford has improved so much and I hope that Chrysler and GM can follow that example. It's about time America had an American car brand to be proud of.
Says David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports Automotive Test Center, "It's rare for Consumer Reports to see family sedans from domestic car makers continue to beat the reliability scores of such highly regarded Japanese models as the Camry and Accord."
Officials at Ford are very happy with these results.
General Motors and Chrysler, companies that both accepted bailouts from the federal government (Ford did not), didn't do nearly as well as Ford. Not one Chrysler model made the list, with more than a third of them being labeled "much worse than average" in reliability. Only the Dodge Ram 1500 scored average. Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge (Chrysler's three brands) were among the four ranked worse in reliability.
There were a few products from GM that did well in the survey, but overall 28 of the 48 vehicles surveyed had below average ratings.
My initial reaction after reading the headline for this story was, "Of course Toyota and Honda, but Ford surprises me a little bit."
I happen to be a die hard Toyota fan. My first car was a 1987 Corolla. It treated me very well for 5 years. I hardly ever had a problem with that vehicle and it was still running great when I sold it at 230,000 miles. After that I had a 1994 Celica for 3 years and it treated me well also. In may of this year I traded that in for a new Matrix and so far, so good on my newest Toyota.
Seeing Ford mentioned in the same category as proven reliable brands like Toyota and Honda surprised me a little bit. The main reason for that is my personal experience. It seems that in many older (by older, I mean 1995 to 2005 or so, just not brand new cars) Fords there is this switch that flips at about 130,000 miles and everything starts to go wrong.
My parents had an 2001 F150 that blew the motor at 135,000 miles. My husband, who has always been a Ford driver had the same experience with a 1996 Ranger and a 2002 Taurus. Both started having multiple problems at around 130,000 miles. Maybe it's coincidence or maybe not, but it was enough to convince the husband anyway.
He has always made jokes about my "rice burner." His brother bought a Honda and got the same "rice burner" comments, all in good fun though. He said American cars were good enough and he didn't need to drive anything foreign. His dad was much the same way, and never drove anything but a Ford or Dodge.
Well, a few years ago his dad bought a new Jetta (VW is German) and slowly they both began to crack. My husband still bought the now defunct Taurus later the same year, stubborn as ever. He is the type of person who maintains a car very well, with regular oil changes and any other needed maintanence being done on time and done well, but it still had problems pretty regularly. I pointed out a time or several that, in the 3 years that we had both cars, my 1994 Celica had no issues while his 2002 Taurus was constantly needing some repair.
After a few years of fighting with the Taurus, he finally gave in and went foreign. As of this month he is the proud owner of a brand new Honda Fit. I have to say, it's kind of weird seeing him in his very own "rice burner," but he's super happy with it.
So, as far as my personal experience goes, you can probably see why I was surprised to see Ford at the top of the list of reliable vehicles. The more I thought about it though, I began to agree with the rating.
Since the other 2 of the "Big 3" accepted bailout money and Ford refused, saying they could get back on their feet with hard work, restructuring and some new ideas, Ford has really stepped up.
While Chrysler and GM remain "much worse than average" in reliability, Ford has really improved their vehicle lineup in many ways. I don't know about you, but I think that the styling is much better than in recent years. The cars are just more attractive and don't scream "boring famly sedan." Many have better MPG ratings than ever and apparently, better reliability ratings as well.
One thing still bugs me though. As close as the Toyota brand has always been to my heart and as good as my cars have treated me in the past, I'm still bothered by the fact that it's the 21st century and American auto makers are still struggling to make a reliable car that Americans want to buy. Because of poor sales, many brands have been cut from GM and Chrysler lineups. A few years ago, it was just Oldsmobile. Now Pontiac and Saturn have also been axed. What's next?
I'm glad to see that Ford has improved so much and I hope that Chrysler and GM can follow that example. It's about time America had an American car brand to be proud of.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Bible-Burning Pastor
Noth Carolina pastor Marc Grizzard is planning to host an event at his church to burn what he calls heretical books and music. The book at the top of his list to burn is none other than the Bible. Any version except the King James that is. Grizzard and the 14 members of Amazing Grace Baptist Church plan to host the bonfire on Halloween night.
Grizzard says that the KJV is the only true word of God. He also believes that all other translations are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
Says Grizzard, "I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."
He goes further to say that any other religious or Christian text that is not the KJV Bible is sacreligious. He considers authors such as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham and Rick Warren to be heretics.
Some residents of the town agree with Grizzard that the KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible. Others disagree, saying that many of the other translations make the Bible easier to understand.
People like this guy really annoy me. He's the type of misinformed, self-righteous bigot that makes other Christians look crazy.
There'a a quote I've heard that says the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
It's very frustrating to me that this one crazy guy is who gets the publicity and his story on a national news network. How many true Christians are there who are doing amazing things and no one knows? The weirdos are the ones that can grab the public's attention.
My initial reaction when I saw the headline (Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event) was to assume it must be some alternative, possibly satanic, church. It never occured to me that someone calling themselves a Christian would burn the Bible.
As I read farther, I got really irritated by many of the things this guy says.
Why is the KJV the only "true word of God?" Why not the original Hebrew text? Did God tell Grizzard that he liked the Shakespearian sound better? It would stand to reason that the original language would be the closest to God's true word, right? A lot of things can get lost in translation from an ancient language to a modern one.
Another thing I take issue with is Grizzard's comment that the KJV is God's true word "for English-speaking people." So, all you foreigners out there can go to hell or speak English. At least that's how I understand it from Grizzard's statement. I guarantee that God's people, the Old Testament nation of Israel, did not speak King James English. I'm pretty sure that there is no verse, not ONE, in the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, whatever you use) that limits believers to one translation.
I personally don't believe that you have to limit your reading strictly to one translation. I think there are benefits to comparing texts. Some passages may make more sense with a slightly different wording. I think that as long as you keep in mind that they are translations done by humans and not handwritten by God, you'll be fine. I believe the words of the Bible should be taken literally. We run into trouble when we begin to form our own, different, interpretaion of what's being said.
While this man still irritates me beyond belief, I feel a little sorry for him and his congregation. I think that Grizzard is mislead in his beliefs and it's sad to me that he thinks this is the way to show God to the world. There are so many things that could be done that show God's love for people and instead he chooses this hate-filled message.
If they really want to send a message to the town on Halloween, their time and money would be better spent hosting a party for neighborhood kids or helping out poor families. Something other than this misguided attempt to make a statement would have been wise.
I'd also like to point out a little irony I noticed in this situation. All of those books and CDs they plan to burn had to come from somewhere. They had to be purchased at some point. So...while they may think they're condemning this music and literature, they're still supporting the artists and authors. It doesn't matter what you do with the product once you buy it. You've already given your money to that person and supported them financially. I wonder if Pastor Grizzard would consider supporting the lifestyle of the "heretics" as heresy. Maybe his church gets a free pass on details like that.
Grizzard says that the KJV is the only true word of God. He also believes that all other translations are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
Says Grizzard, "I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."
He goes further to say that any other religious or Christian text that is not the KJV Bible is sacreligious. He considers authors such as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham and Rick Warren to be heretics.
Some residents of the town agree with Grizzard that the KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible. Others disagree, saying that many of the other translations make the Bible easier to understand.
People like this guy really annoy me. He's the type of misinformed, self-righteous bigot that makes other Christians look crazy.
There'a a quote I've heard that says the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
It's very frustrating to me that this one crazy guy is who gets the publicity and his story on a national news network. How many true Christians are there who are doing amazing things and no one knows? The weirdos are the ones that can grab the public's attention.
My initial reaction when I saw the headline (Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event) was to assume it must be some alternative, possibly satanic, church. It never occured to me that someone calling themselves a Christian would burn the Bible.
As I read farther, I got really irritated by many of the things this guy says.
Why is the KJV the only "true word of God?" Why not the original Hebrew text? Did God tell Grizzard that he liked the Shakespearian sound better? It would stand to reason that the original language would be the closest to God's true word, right? A lot of things can get lost in translation from an ancient language to a modern one.
Another thing I take issue with is Grizzard's comment that the KJV is God's true word "for English-speaking people." So, all you foreigners out there can go to hell or speak English. At least that's how I understand it from Grizzard's statement. I guarantee that God's people, the Old Testament nation of Israel, did not speak King James English. I'm pretty sure that there is no verse, not ONE, in the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, whatever you use) that limits believers to one translation.
I personally don't believe that you have to limit your reading strictly to one translation. I think there are benefits to comparing texts. Some passages may make more sense with a slightly different wording. I think that as long as you keep in mind that they are translations done by humans and not handwritten by God, you'll be fine. I believe the words of the Bible should be taken literally. We run into trouble when we begin to form our own, different, interpretaion of what's being said.
While this man still irritates me beyond belief, I feel a little sorry for him and his congregation. I think that Grizzard is mislead in his beliefs and it's sad to me that he thinks this is the way to show God to the world. There are so many things that could be done that show God's love for people and instead he chooses this hate-filled message.
If they really want to send a message to the town on Halloween, their time and money would be better spent hosting a party for neighborhood kids or helping out poor families. Something other than this misguided attempt to make a statement would have been wise.
I'd also like to point out a little irony I noticed in this situation. All of those books and CDs they plan to burn had to come from somewhere. They had to be purchased at some point. So...while they may think they're condemning this music and literature, they're still supporting the artists and authors. It doesn't matter what you do with the product once you buy it. You've already given your money to that person and supported them financially. I wonder if Pastor Grizzard would consider supporting the lifestyle of the "heretics" as heresy. Maybe his church gets a free pass on details like that.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Textbook defintion of dumb
Maxi Sopo, originally from Camaroon, Africa, came to the United States around 2003. He used to make his living selling roses in Seattle nightclubs. Apparently that wasn't cutting it so he eventually moved on to bank fraud.
Federal prosecutors say that Sopo and an associate falsely obtained over $200, 000 from banks and credit unions in the Seattle area. Sopo and the associate, Edward Asatoorians, would persuade young co-conspirators to lie about income in order to recieve loans for fake auto purchases. They then used the money for Asatoorians's business and to take a pricey trip to Las Vegas.
Asatoorians was caught and convicted by a federal jury, but Sopo escaped to Mexico when they realized their scheme had been discovered. Since then, authorities have been unable to locate Sopo. They have been periodically checking social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace but with no luck for a long time. Then Secret Service agent Seth Reeg happened to check Facebook one more time and there was Maxi Sopo.
Sopo's profile was private but not his friends list. Reeg started going through the list and stumbled across one friend who was a former Justice Department official. Reeg contacted the friend and explained the situation. The friend was able to provide Sopo's address to authorities and he was arrested last month.
Apparently he had been living a pretty good life in Cancun since running from the U.S. He worked in a hotel and partied and relaxed on the beach all the time.
If Sopo is convicted, he will face up to 30 years in prison.
I love this information age we're in now! It just makes my day to hear stories like this. If there is one thing that irritates me almost more than anything else, it's when people get away scot-free after committing crimes. I love that we're in an era now where everything you do leaves a footprint behind. I've been hearing more and more stories of fugitives being captured with the help of the internet and new software.
When I read the headline for this story (Fugitive busted after accepting friend request) I thought it was going to be a pretty good story. By the second paragraph I was laughing out loud.
Then he did two things that are never a good idea when you're on the run from authorities: He started posting Facebook updates about how much fun he was having — and added a former Justice Department official to his list of friends.
Seriously, how dumb can you get? This guy is on the run from authorities. He's now an international fugitive. What seems like the best course of action?
Maybe lay low and change your name?
Maybe try to head for a country not in cooperation with the country in which you are a criminal?
Maybe NOT open a Facebook account in your real name?
I guess Sopo didn't like or didn't think of any of these options. I find it kind of hard to believe that he could be so dumb considering the intelligence he needed to pull of the scheme he was running in Seattle. Or maybe his partner was the brains of the operation. Whatever the situation, it still seems like Criminal On The Run 101 to not broadcast your whereabouts on the internet.
I guess he just got a little over confident, or all that partying took its toll on his brain cells.
The funniest part of this whole story, to me, is that one of his Facebook friends just happened to be a former Justice Department official. How unlucky can you get? I applaud this guy for helping the U.S. authorities out in catching Sopo.
The only question I still have about this story is this: What, if anything, happened to the "young co-conspirators" that the article mentioned? It hardly seems fair if they get away without punishment, however small a part they played.
In case you don't get to read the full article, I thought I'd post some of the comments and status updates provided from Sopo's Facebook. Just because I think they're kind of funny.
In status updates, Sopo said he was "loving it" and "living in paradise."
"LIFE IS VERY SIMPLE REALLY!!!!" he wrote on June 21. "BUT SOME OF US HUMANS MAKE A MESS OF IT...REMEMBER AM JUST HERE TO HAVE FUN PARTEEEEEEE."
I wonder what his status would have been if he were able to update right at the time he was arrested.
Federal prosecutors say that Sopo and an associate falsely obtained over $200, 000 from banks and credit unions in the Seattle area. Sopo and the associate, Edward Asatoorians, would persuade young co-conspirators to lie about income in order to recieve loans for fake auto purchases. They then used the money for Asatoorians's business and to take a pricey trip to Las Vegas.
Asatoorians was caught and convicted by a federal jury, but Sopo escaped to Mexico when they realized their scheme had been discovered. Since then, authorities have been unable to locate Sopo. They have been periodically checking social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace but with no luck for a long time. Then Secret Service agent Seth Reeg happened to check Facebook one more time and there was Maxi Sopo.
Sopo's profile was private but not his friends list. Reeg started going through the list and stumbled across one friend who was a former Justice Department official. Reeg contacted the friend and explained the situation. The friend was able to provide Sopo's address to authorities and he was arrested last month.
Apparently he had been living a pretty good life in Cancun since running from the U.S. He worked in a hotel and partied and relaxed on the beach all the time.
If Sopo is convicted, he will face up to 30 years in prison.
I love this information age we're in now! It just makes my day to hear stories like this. If there is one thing that irritates me almost more than anything else, it's when people get away scot-free after committing crimes. I love that we're in an era now where everything you do leaves a footprint behind. I've been hearing more and more stories of fugitives being captured with the help of the internet and new software.
When I read the headline for this story (Fugitive busted after accepting friend request) I thought it was going to be a pretty good story. By the second paragraph I was laughing out loud.
Then he did two things that are never a good idea when you're on the run from authorities: He started posting Facebook updates about how much fun he was having — and added a former Justice Department official to his list of friends.
Seriously, how dumb can you get? This guy is on the run from authorities. He's now an international fugitive. What seems like the best course of action?
Maybe lay low and change your name?
Maybe try to head for a country not in cooperation with the country in which you are a criminal?
Maybe NOT open a Facebook account in your real name?
I guess Sopo didn't like or didn't think of any of these options. I find it kind of hard to believe that he could be so dumb considering the intelligence he needed to pull of the scheme he was running in Seattle. Or maybe his partner was the brains of the operation. Whatever the situation, it still seems like Criminal On The Run 101 to not broadcast your whereabouts on the internet.
I guess he just got a little over confident, or all that partying took its toll on his brain cells.
The funniest part of this whole story, to me, is that one of his Facebook friends just happened to be a former Justice Department official. How unlucky can you get? I applaud this guy for helping the U.S. authorities out in catching Sopo.
The only question I still have about this story is this: What, if anything, happened to the "young co-conspirators" that the article mentioned? It hardly seems fair if they get away without punishment, however small a part they played.
In case you don't get to read the full article, I thought I'd post some of the comments and status updates provided from Sopo's Facebook. Just because I think they're kind of funny.
In status updates, Sopo said he was "loving it" and "living in paradise."
"LIFE IS VERY SIMPLE REALLY!!!!" he wrote on June 21. "BUT SOME OF US HUMANS MAKE A MESS OF IT...REMEMBER AM JUST HERE TO HAVE FUN PARTEEEEEEE."
I wonder what his status would have been if he were able to update right at the time he was arrested.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
License pictures scanned to find criminals
The FBI has begun using facial-recognition software on millions of drivers to search for fugitives. The software compares pictures gathered from scanning millions of drivers to pictures of known criminals. The focus of this article is the effort in North Carolina that has already helped capture one criminal by using this method.
While this method sounds like an ideal way to catch criminals on the run, many are concerned about their privacy. One attorney, Christopher Calabrese, who focuses on privacy issues likens the program to drivers being put in a vitual lineup when they obtain a driver's license. Many privacy advocates are worried that this will allow authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
Says Calabrese, "Licenses started as a permission to drive. Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
The facial recognition software is not new, but the program in North Carolina is the first major step for the FBI in using it to locate criminals. With the success so far, they are looking at expanding use of the program nationwide.
The FBI has established a panel to decide how to best implement use of the software in the rest of the country and it will be some time before we see it very widely used.
At this point, state and federal laws allow license agencies to release license records to law enforcement, but the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. A spokesperson for the FBI says that, unless someone is a criminal there is no reason to store the photo. They say they want to steer clear of anything like that, since it is definitely a privacy concern.
I actually think this is a great idea. If something helps law enforcement officials catch up with criminals on the run, I say go for it.
As I was reading farther into this article, I began to understand the viewpoint of people who might be against this program. I understand that there could be cause for concern among people who have done nothing wrong. They could definitley feel that their privacy might be invaded. That being said, I don't agree with them.
The FBI has said that they have no intention of storing photos of non-criminals or people who have no reason to be investigated. The way I see it, if you've done something wrong you really have no legitimate reason to oppose this program. The only reason I can see for a criminal to be against this is to avoid getting caught.
If you've done nothing wrong, what is there to worry about? The government already knows pretty much everything there is to know about a person. Why not have your picture too? I would actually expect them to have it already.
I think this is a huge step for law enforcement. I hope that this will lead to many more criminals being caught. It's not right that so many can run from state to state and evade capture for years.
Personally, it doesn't bother me at all if my picture is stored by the FBI. If they stick by what they claim and don't use pictures of non-criminals, I have nothing to worry about anyway.
I do understand the viewpoint of people who are against this program, but I still think it will be very useful. We live in a time when it's necessary to provide identification in almost every situation. There is just so much fraud and identity theft going on, not to mention the rising terrorist threat. That's why I don't really agree with the statement made by Mr. Calabrese about driver's licenses (quoted in my summary above). I think it's absolutely necessary these days to provide a valid, state-issued ID whenever asked. I see no problem with the government using the picture from that ID to help with the apprehension of fugitives.
While this method sounds like an ideal way to catch criminals on the run, many are concerned about their privacy. One attorney, Christopher Calabrese, who focuses on privacy issues likens the program to drivers being put in a vitual lineup when they obtain a driver's license. Many privacy advocates are worried that this will allow authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
Says Calabrese, "Licenses started as a permission to drive. Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
The facial recognition software is not new, but the program in North Carolina is the first major step for the FBI in using it to locate criminals. With the success so far, they are looking at expanding use of the program nationwide.
The FBI has established a panel to decide how to best implement use of the software in the rest of the country and it will be some time before we see it very widely used.
At this point, state and federal laws allow license agencies to release license records to law enforcement, but the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. A spokesperson for the FBI says that, unless someone is a criminal there is no reason to store the photo. They say they want to steer clear of anything like that, since it is definitely a privacy concern.
I actually think this is a great idea. If something helps law enforcement officials catch up with criminals on the run, I say go for it.
As I was reading farther into this article, I began to understand the viewpoint of people who might be against this program. I understand that there could be cause for concern among people who have done nothing wrong. They could definitley feel that their privacy might be invaded. That being said, I don't agree with them.
The FBI has said that they have no intention of storing photos of non-criminals or people who have no reason to be investigated. The way I see it, if you've done something wrong you really have no legitimate reason to oppose this program. The only reason I can see for a criminal to be against this is to avoid getting caught.
If you've done nothing wrong, what is there to worry about? The government already knows pretty much everything there is to know about a person. Why not have your picture too? I would actually expect them to have it already.
I think this is a huge step for law enforcement. I hope that this will lead to many more criminals being caught. It's not right that so many can run from state to state and evade capture for years.
Personally, it doesn't bother me at all if my picture is stored by the FBI. If they stick by what they claim and don't use pictures of non-criminals, I have nothing to worry about anyway.
I do understand the viewpoint of people who are against this program, but I still think it will be very useful. We live in a time when it's necessary to provide identification in almost every situation. There is just so much fraud and identity theft going on, not to mention the rising terrorist threat. That's why I don't really agree with the statement made by Mr. Calabrese about driver's licenses (quoted in my summary above). I think it's absolutely necessary these days to provide a valid, state-issued ID whenever asked. I see no problem with the government using the picture from that ID to help with the apprehension of fugitives.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Fake Jobs
There are new scams popping up every day all over the internet. One type of scam that's on the rise preys on the unemployed who are looking for jobs. This article talks about this new trend.
People are using popular job search websites to gain access to personal information such as names, dates of birth and social security numbers from those who think they're applying for jobs. These scam artists will post fake job openings to grab the attention of those searching the websites for work. Then they ask for all sorts of personal info to help in applying for the fake job. With that info, they can then apply for credit cards and other things in the unsuspecting applicants name.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is working harder than ever to catch the people responsible for these and other scams. One case the FTC filed was against a bogus company called Job Safety. Their ads were aimed at people seeking work in maintenance and cleaning. They said that for $98, applicants could get a "certificate registration number" and that Job Safety would help them find a job. There were no jobs and the company was fake.
There are many more scams out there and job hunters need to be alert when searching. The article list many "red flags" to look for when searching for a job online.
It really doesn't surprise me that there are people who would do things like this. It's sad that people have gone so far as to prey on those who are desperately looking for a means to make a living. Sad, but not unbelievable.
As I was reading this article, I just got more and more irritated at the people responsible for these scams. It's frustrating that someone can put so much time and energy into coming up with these ideas. That time could be better spent working at a real job.
This might sound strange but I was also a little annoyed that so many people are falling for these scams. Some scam artists are very good, but most of them really aren't that great. They are too concerned with making a quick profit to spend too much time and money on the scam. Some of these bogus claims are really pretty easy to see right through. This is an example from the article:
Jay Foley, executive director of the Identity Theft Resource Center, is working with a man who took what he thought was a job as a mystery shopper for Western Union. After answering an ad on Craigslist, he received a $3,500 check, which he deposited into his bank account. He then went to Western Union to wire the money and observe the quality of customer service. The man was cautious — he waited for the check to clear first. Only later did he find out that while the check was written on a real account, it wasn't authorized. The company eventually voided the transaction, leaving the man responsible for the $3,500 he'd wired.
This man and his bank frustrate the heck out of me. He should have known better than to take something he found on craigslist.com at face value. He should have taken the time to research the company or contact the Better Business Bureau or the FTC. If it's legitimate, it's worth going the extra few steps to make sure.
His bank is partly at fault though. Bank employees are trained in fraud and security and should be able to recognize this "secret shopper" scam right away. They are one of the most commonly used scams and are pretty hard to miss. It's the bank's responsibility to protect and educate their customers. If a teller at the bank where I work let one of these checks through, they'd likely lose their job. The bank is out that money just like the customer.
I wish that stuff like this didn't go on, but the truth is that it does. We have to be much more cautious and hesitant than ever now. There are scam artists and people waiting to trick you out of a few dollars all over the place these days. The internet has only made this easier.
While I do think it's great that the FTC and other organizations are making such an effort to combat these scams, I'm not sure that it will ever be enough. People are creative when they need to make some money and there will always be new scams out there. We just have to be more and more careful all the time.
People are using popular job search websites to gain access to personal information such as names, dates of birth and social security numbers from those who think they're applying for jobs. These scam artists will post fake job openings to grab the attention of those searching the websites for work. Then they ask for all sorts of personal info to help in applying for the fake job. With that info, they can then apply for credit cards and other things in the unsuspecting applicants name.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is working harder than ever to catch the people responsible for these and other scams. One case the FTC filed was against a bogus company called Job Safety. Their ads were aimed at people seeking work in maintenance and cleaning. They said that for $98, applicants could get a "certificate registration number" and that Job Safety would help them find a job. There were no jobs and the company was fake.
There are many more scams out there and job hunters need to be alert when searching. The article list many "red flags" to look for when searching for a job online.
- Legitimate companies won't use an email account with a domain like Hotmail, Yahoo, or Gmail. They will use a company email address.
- NO company has any reason to ask for bank account or credit card info just to apply for a job.
- Many scams will try to make you think you have to pay to receive unemployment benefits. This is not true.
It really doesn't surprise me that there are people who would do things like this. It's sad that people have gone so far as to prey on those who are desperately looking for a means to make a living. Sad, but not unbelievable.
As I was reading this article, I just got more and more irritated at the people responsible for these scams. It's frustrating that someone can put so much time and energy into coming up with these ideas. That time could be better spent working at a real job.
This might sound strange but I was also a little annoyed that so many people are falling for these scams. Some scam artists are very good, but most of them really aren't that great. They are too concerned with making a quick profit to spend too much time and money on the scam. Some of these bogus claims are really pretty easy to see right through. This is an example from the article:
Jay Foley, executive director of the Identity Theft Resource Center, is working with a man who took what he thought was a job as a mystery shopper for Western Union. After answering an ad on Craigslist, he received a $3,500 check, which he deposited into his bank account. He then went to Western Union to wire the money and observe the quality of customer service. The man was cautious — he waited for the check to clear first. Only later did he find out that while the check was written on a real account, it wasn't authorized. The company eventually voided the transaction, leaving the man responsible for the $3,500 he'd wired.
This man and his bank frustrate the heck out of me. He should have known better than to take something he found on craigslist.com at face value. He should have taken the time to research the company or contact the Better Business Bureau or the FTC. If it's legitimate, it's worth going the extra few steps to make sure.
His bank is partly at fault though. Bank employees are trained in fraud and security and should be able to recognize this "secret shopper" scam right away. They are one of the most commonly used scams and are pretty hard to miss. It's the bank's responsibility to protect and educate their customers. If a teller at the bank where I work let one of these checks through, they'd likely lose their job. The bank is out that money just like the customer.
I wish that stuff like this didn't go on, but the truth is that it does. We have to be much more cautious and hesitant than ever now. There are scam artists and people waiting to trick you out of a few dollars all over the place these days. The internet has only made this easier.
While I do think it's great that the FTC and other organizations are making such an effort to combat these scams, I'm not sure that it will ever be enough. People are creative when they need to make some money and there will always be new scams out there. We just have to be more and more careful all the time.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sex Offenders Banned From Church
I was surprised to learn that many sex offenders are apparently being banned from attending church services in some states. The more I read of this article, the more I understood the reasoning for this regulation, but I'm still torn on whether it should be in place.
The focus of the article is convicted sex offender James Nichols who says he was trying to better himself by going to church. The problem is that he was arrested by officers who say the reason is that the church has a daycare facility that makes it off limits to sex offenders. Now Nichols is challenging the laws in South Carolina that contributed to his arrest.
In some states, issues like that of Nichols are raising questions about the rights of sex offenders to attend places of worship. Many state laws make the places off limits automatically due to programs and care facilities provided for minor children. The article states that sex offender advocates agree that some offenders should not be allowed around children but that barring all offenders denies them support they need to become productive citizens.
Presently 36 states have established zones where registered sex offenders cannot live or visit, but only a few provide exemptions for churches.
Many church leaders are torn on the idea of allowing sex offenders to attend services. While many would like to provide a second chance and support for offenders on the road to recovery, they are still wary.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church Nichols attended after his arrest, says,
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track. The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue. My first reaction to the story was to think that sex offenders gave up many rights when they committed their crimes and should expect things like this to happen. I was in total agreeance with the laws that led to Nichols being arrested.
But the farther I read and the more I thought about things, it doesn't seem entirely fair. Yes, I know- life's not fair, they got what they deserved, etc.
But I'm leaning more toward Nichols's view on the matter. How can he be expected to learn how to live a better life and learn from his past crimes when society never really allows him to be a part of it anymore?
It's such a controversial topic, allowing a sex offender anywhere remotely near a child. In some cases, I think it shouldn't be allowed at all. There are many offenders whose crimes are so heinous that, if they aren't locked up for life, they shouldn't be allowed to ever see a child again.
I do believe that there are some that truly do want to make up for past mistakes and start over on a better path.
It's hard for a church especially, to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the church is there to provide sanctuary and second chances to those that everyone else may have given up on. But on the other hand, the church is a place of safety for all who attend. I can completely understand any parents who would have a problem with a convicted offender being anywhere near their child. If I had children, I know I would.
I just don't think they should be barred from church entirely. Many, many people who were previously thought hopeless have turned their lives around due in part to the church. I believe in second chances and forgiveness and that both should be extended to just about everyone.
That doesn't mean that I'd campaign for Nichols or anyone like him to be the new youth minister at my church.
I think it's the responsiblity of the chruch to offer help to all who need it. They also have the responsiblity to protect the children who can't protect themselves. Many churches, mine included, conduct a thorough background check on anyone interested in working with the youth. This helps to weed out anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the safety of the kids. It seems to me that if more churches adopted procedures like this, it would largely solve this problem. Churches would still be able to reach out to sex offenders to help them turn their lives around and children would be kept safe in the care of qualified people.
Worshipping in a place of their choice is something that should be available to anyone, no matter their past decisions. Jesus reached out to the outcasts and the ones no one else would help.What makes us too good to do the same?
The focus of the article is convicted sex offender James Nichols who says he was trying to better himself by going to church. The problem is that he was arrested by officers who say the reason is that the church has a daycare facility that makes it off limits to sex offenders. Now Nichols is challenging the laws in South Carolina that contributed to his arrest.
In some states, issues like that of Nichols are raising questions about the rights of sex offenders to attend places of worship. Many state laws make the places off limits automatically due to programs and care facilities provided for minor children. The article states that sex offender advocates agree that some offenders should not be allowed around children but that barring all offenders denies them support they need to become productive citizens.
Presently 36 states have established zones where registered sex offenders cannot live or visit, but only a few provide exemptions for churches.
Many church leaders are torn on the idea of allowing sex offenders to attend services. While many would like to provide a second chance and support for offenders on the road to recovery, they are still wary.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church Nichols attended after his arrest, says,
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track. The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue. My first reaction to the story was to think that sex offenders gave up many rights when they committed their crimes and should expect things like this to happen. I was in total agreeance with the laws that led to Nichols being arrested.
But the farther I read and the more I thought about things, it doesn't seem entirely fair. Yes, I know- life's not fair, they got what they deserved, etc.
But I'm leaning more toward Nichols's view on the matter. How can he be expected to learn how to live a better life and learn from his past crimes when society never really allows him to be a part of it anymore?
It's such a controversial topic, allowing a sex offender anywhere remotely near a child. In some cases, I think it shouldn't be allowed at all. There are many offenders whose crimes are so heinous that, if they aren't locked up for life, they shouldn't be allowed to ever see a child again.
I do believe that there are some that truly do want to make up for past mistakes and start over on a better path.
It's hard for a church especially, to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the church is there to provide sanctuary and second chances to those that everyone else may have given up on. But on the other hand, the church is a place of safety for all who attend. I can completely understand any parents who would have a problem with a convicted offender being anywhere near their child. If I had children, I know I would.
I just don't think they should be barred from church entirely. Many, many people who were previously thought hopeless have turned their lives around due in part to the church. I believe in second chances and forgiveness and that both should be extended to just about everyone.
That doesn't mean that I'd campaign for Nichols or anyone like him to be the new youth minister at my church.
I think it's the responsiblity of the chruch to offer help to all who need it. They also have the responsiblity to protect the children who can't protect themselves. Many churches, mine included, conduct a thorough background check on anyone interested in working with the youth. This helps to weed out anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the safety of the kids. It seems to me that if more churches adopted procedures like this, it would largely solve this problem. Churches would still be able to reach out to sex offenders to help them turn their lives around and children would be kept safe in the care of qualified people.
Worshipping in a place of their choice is something that should be available to anyone, no matter their past decisions. Jesus reached out to the outcasts and the ones no one else would help.What makes us too good to do the same?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Possible vaccine for cocaine addiction
I never thought much about something like a cocaine addiction vaccine actually working. The way this article explains it though, it could work a lot like nicotine patches do for smokers.
Recent research has shown that this vaccine-like shot is preventing users from getting high and also helping them fight their drug addiction. So far the shots don't work perfectly for every individual but the results look very promising. Researchers say that a perfected shot could be widely used to treat addiction within several years.
The vaccine works much the same way that nicotine vaccines do for smokers. They both stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that attach to molecules of the drugs and block them from reaching the brain. This prevents the "high" that you would get from cocaine or nicotine.
In a study of this new vaccine, participants didn't experience the typical euphoric high that comes with cocaine use. Nearly 40 percent of them substantially cut back their use or stopped at least temporarily.
While the vaccine is still in it's early stages, many researchers say that the recent results are very promising. They hope to intoduce it to the mass market within several years to help battle the rising number of people hooked on cocaine.
I think the possiblity of a vaccine for cocaine dependancy is wonderful. I don't altogether understand what makes some people start in the first place but I do understand that it's next to impossible to quit once you're hooked. I've seen people addicted to cocaine and watched their lives spiral out of control. You really can't quit on your own. Something like this vaccine could give hope to a lot of people.
I was somewhat surprised to find out that methadone has no effect on cocaine addiction. The article talks about methadone being used to treat herion addiction but it also mentions that methadone is ineffective when it comes to cocaine dependancy.
I was impressed with some of the statistics of the study too. The article states that, of the group of 115 cocaine users, 53 percent stopped using cocaine for more than half the duration of the 12 week study. While they may have gone back to using, I think these results are very promising. Cocaine addiction is a very serious thing. Some addicts can't go more than mere hours between hits. To be able to stop altogether, even if it is temporary, is definitely an accomplishment.
The only concern I had when reading this article was this: What happens after? Once the addict has started treatment and successfully quits using cocaine, what happens then. How long do they need to keep up a regimen of shots to prevent a relapse? Can they become as dependant on the vaccine as they were on the cocaine?
I hope we hear more about this in the future. I think the possiblity of a cure for cocaine addiction is a great thing and I wish all the luck in the world to the doctors and scientists working on this project.
Recent research has shown that this vaccine-like shot is preventing users from getting high and also helping them fight their drug addiction. So far the shots don't work perfectly for every individual but the results look very promising. Researchers say that a perfected shot could be widely used to treat addiction within several years.
The vaccine works much the same way that nicotine vaccines do for smokers. They both stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that attach to molecules of the drugs and block them from reaching the brain. This prevents the "high" that you would get from cocaine or nicotine.
In a study of this new vaccine, participants didn't experience the typical euphoric high that comes with cocaine use. Nearly 40 percent of them substantially cut back their use or stopped at least temporarily.
While the vaccine is still in it's early stages, many researchers say that the recent results are very promising. They hope to intoduce it to the mass market within several years to help battle the rising number of people hooked on cocaine.
I think the possiblity of a vaccine for cocaine dependancy is wonderful. I don't altogether understand what makes some people start in the first place but I do understand that it's next to impossible to quit once you're hooked. I've seen people addicted to cocaine and watched their lives spiral out of control. You really can't quit on your own. Something like this vaccine could give hope to a lot of people.
I was somewhat surprised to find out that methadone has no effect on cocaine addiction. The article talks about methadone being used to treat herion addiction but it also mentions that methadone is ineffective when it comes to cocaine dependancy.
I was impressed with some of the statistics of the study too. The article states that, of the group of 115 cocaine users, 53 percent stopped using cocaine for more than half the duration of the 12 week study. While they may have gone back to using, I think these results are very promising. Cocaine addiction is a very serious thing. Some addicts can't go more than mere hours between hits. To be able to stop altogether, even if it is temporary, is definitely an accomplishment.
The only concern I had when reading this article was this: What happens after? Once the addict has started treatment and successfully quits using cocaine, what happens then. How long do they need to keep up a regimen of shots to prevent a relapse? Can they become as dependant on the vaccine as they were on the cocaine?
I hope we hear more about this in the future. I think the possiblity of a cure for cocaine addiction is a great thing and I wish all the luck in the world to the doctors and scientists working on this project.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Why Banks Should Charge Higher Overdraft Fees
I found this opinion piece from Newsweek and I kind of agree with the author. It's about time banks stopped getting blamed for customers trying to use money that isn't in their accounts.
The article talks about how there has been a lot of negative media attention given to banks and the overdraft fees they charge. The fees are portrayed as unfair and it's implied that banks are preying on poor, unsuspecting Americans with those fees.
Congress has expressed anger over these charges and intends to do something about it. They have already introduced legislation intended to force these banks into charging lower fees or possibly none at all in some situations. The banks are starting to cave, with some already lowering fees or not charging at all if the overdraft is under a certain amount.
Many people are criticizing banks for charging overdraft fees, claiming that banks only prey on poor people. The author presents the following point and I agree with him. The only people group that banks are targeting is the group of people who spend money they don't have. Credit card companies react in much the same way when you reach your credit limit. You have only a certain amount to use and you should plan for that.
The article suggests that we seem to have forgotten whose fault it really is when we spend money we don't have. Ours. Banks aren't there to babysit us.
I agree with this article one hundred percent. I do think that there are banks that haven't used the best judgement in making loans. That's become blatantly obvious in the last few years. But I believe that customers should take resposibility for overdrawing their accounts.
Working in a bank, I talk to people all the time about the fees we've charged them for spending what they don't have. Our bank is actually a little more lenient as far as overdrafts go. Our normal fee of $20 is a little lower than a lot of other banks and we don't assess that fee until it's 6 p.m. and no deposit was made to cover the overdraft.
Even though we do try to make things a little easier, there are still people who are convinced that we're out to get them and they are the only customer being targeted with the fees.
I do agree with the author when he says that we have become a "nanny state" where everyone should be coddled and pampered, every child is gifted and talented and we shouldn't be expected to pay for our mistakes.
I love my job, but it is frustrating sometimes. We have customers every now and then who rant and rave about how we shouldn't charge those fees because they just made an itsy-bitsy mistake and the federal bailout money that so many banks recieved should be used instead.
I want to explain that our bank refused that money because we're fine on our own. We haven't made poor decisions that led other banks to have to beg money from the government. What started out as a small community bank 30 years ago now has over 20 percent of the business in Jasper and Newton counties. It didn't get that way by waiving fees for every customer who spent money that wasn't there.
I don't say all of that because I do like my job and I'd like to keep it.
Really, though I don't understand this sense of entitlement that our country has developed. The way I see it, if I overdraw my checking account that's my own fault and I expect to pay back what I owe the bank. I would be embarrased to make a fuss and blame the bank for my mistake.
I hope that some of this proposed legislation that blames the banks for customer mistakes isn't passed. Why punish the bank when it's generally the customer's fault that they overdraft?
What I see happening is this: Banks can't charge these fees (which they are totally justified in doing) so the customer thinks, "Hey, there's no penalty for spending what I don't really have. That's basically free money right?" This is going to result in charged off accounts galore. How does that help the poor customer? They learn nothing and have a pretty blemish on their credit report.
Basically I think it's time more people learned to be financially responsible. Work with what we have, not what we can weasel out of the bank.
The article talks about how there has been a lot of negative media attention given to banks and the overdraft fees they charge. The fees are portrayed as unfair and it's implied that banks are preying on poor, unsuspecting Americans with those fees.
Congress has expressed anger over these charges and intends to do something about it. They have already introduced legislation intended to force these banks into charging lower fees or possibly none at all in some situations. The banks are starting to cave, with some already lowering fees or not charging at all if the overdraft is under a certain amount.
Many people are criticizing banks for charging overdraft fees, claiming that banks only prey on poor people. The author presents the following point and I agree with him. The only people group that banks are targeting is the group of people who spend money they don't have. Credit card companies react in much the same way when you reach your credit limit. You have only a certain amount to use and you should plan for that.
The article suggests that we seem to have forgotten whose fault it really is when we spend money we don't have. Ours. Banks aren't there to babysit us.
I agree with this article one hundred percent. I do think that there are banks that haven't used the best judgement in making loans. That's become blatantly obvious in the last few years. But I believe that customers should take resposibility for overdrawing their accounts.
Working in a bank, I talk to people all the time about the fees we've charged them for spending what they don't have. Our bank is actually a little more lenient as far as overdrafts go. Our normal fee of $20 is a little lower than a lot of other banks and we don't assess that fee until it's 6 p.m. and no deposit was made to cover the overdraft.
Even though we do try to make things a little easier, there are still people who are convinced that we're out to get them and they are the only customer being targeted with the fees.
I do agree with the author when he says that we have become a "nanny state" where everyone should be coddled and pampered, every child is gifted and talented and we shouldn't be expected to pay for our mistakes.
I love my job, but it is frustrating sometimes. We have customers every now and then who rant and rave about how we shouldn't charge those fees because they just made an itsy-bitsy mistake and the federal bailout money that so many banks recieved should be used instead.
I want to explain that our bank refused that money because we're fine on our own. We haven't made poor decisions that led other banks to have to beg money from the government. What started out as a small community bank 30 years ago now has over 20 percent of the business in Jasper and Newton counties. It didn't get that way by waiving fees for every customer who spent money that wasn't there.
I don't say all of that because I do like my job and I'd like to keep it.
Really, though I don't understand this sense of entitlement that our country has developed. The way I see it, if I overdraw my checking account that's my own fault and I expect to pay back what I owe the bank. I would be embarrased to make a fuss and blame the bank for my mistake.
I hope that some of this proposed legislation that blames the banks for customer mistakes isn't passed. Why punish the bank when it's generally the customer's fault that they overdraft?
What I see happening is this: Banks can't charge these fees (which they are totally justified in doing) so the customer thinks, "Hey, there's no penalty for spending what I don't really have. That's basically free money right?" This is going to result in charged off accounts galore. How does that help the poor customer? They learn nothing and have a pretty blemish on their credit report.
Basically I think it's time more people learned to be financially responsible. Work with what we have, not what we can weasel out of the bank.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
