TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief

Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief

J Kelly (jkelly@*newsguy.com)
Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:25:13 -0500

The problem with checks is that all I need is your routing and account
number, and guess what? Those are printed on every one of your checks
in plain human readable numerals. I can print up new checks on my
computer with any ID on them I want, and your account number. I can
start passing them around town same as your sneak thief. And guess
what? I can easily get a fake ID to match the ID of the person I put
on the check. Checks are terribly insecure.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:10:44 -0500, J Kelly <jkelly@*newsguy.com>
wrote:

> A few months back some dirtbag got ahold of my debit card number. No
> idea how. They debit $500 to a poker website. I caught it within 24
> hours and had the bank to a hot card. I was told that FDIC rules
> require the bank to CLOSE an account in which any of the imformation
> is known to have been compromised. I'm curious why they didn't close
> your account, especially since physical checks were stolen.

> Of course, if they did, and you opened a new account the info would be
> compromised as soon as you write a new check.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The sneak thief got two of my
> _original_ boxes of checks, numbered 101 through 125 and 126 through
> 150. They had never been opened, since it is very rare that I ever
> write a manual check. The guy did not get my debit card or any
> access to my bank account otherwise. The bank manager simply noted
> my account 'no manual checks ever written on this account' and said
> she would watch my account for a few days in case Walmart (or some
> other store of that ilk) had gotten a check. No word on that yet, so
> maybe they did not take a check, since the thief would have not had
> any of my identification anyway, which Walmart (hopefully) would have
> insisted on but local merchants probably would not have required since
> so many of them know me and the missing checks _were_ imprinted with
> my address and phone number (but not my SSN). PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Steven Lichter: "Last Laugh! Doctors are Now Spamming to Get Business"
Go to Previous message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack"
May be in reply to: TELECOM Digest Editor: "An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief"
Next in thread: DevilsPGD: "Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page