This. Anecdotal, sure. Seems like we could identify a few more of those without the hat though.

All sounds very odd. I've never been into a UK bank that has any visible security measures beyond CCTV cameras, having the cashiers behind glass and a "remove your crash helmet" policy.

No security guards, no metal detectors, no weighing, no emptying of pockets, no security doors.

What are you chaps doing in your banks anyway ? I was just thinking back and I've only been inside a branch once in the last twelve months, to pay in a cheque, and even that was optional as I could have mailed it in.

Everything else is done by phone, online or ATM. Is there some quirky US activity that requires your physical presence in the branch ?

Well, Strip-Naked-before-entering policy would not be a valid option by my own example because the benefit would be way smaller than the damage done. Unless you lived in a culture in which nudity has no particular meaning.
The point is how much of your comfort and convenience you want to sacrifice to achieve security to a level which you consider acceptable. Clearly this is to a large extent subjective, but exactly because of that you can't use the reductio ad absurdum approach. Otherwise, by that same token.... Is entering a long-enough password on a website to authenticate, then, and infringement upon one's freedom to enter anywhere I want without wasting my time hitting keys on my keyboard I don't want to hit? Is the convention of saying "hello" an infringement upon my freedom to greet others by yelling instead "I hate you!!!" without them being offended?

Also, I did not mean to sound sarcastic here. I really wonder that. Because one would assume that behind specific security policies there's some study, stats, some data to support them. Which makes me curious how come some banks, here, just rely on bored security personnel, and others treat you as if you're entering a top secret facility right out oaf a Sci-Fi movie. It makes little sense to me, and makes me suspicious there are a lot of arbitrary decisions behind these policies. But, who knows.

I try not to assume stuff, and don't attribute things to intelligent design when they're more likely to be an evolutionary accident or whim.

Just think of the "turn off your cellphones at the petrol pumps" rule that many petrol stations over on this side still post and enforce. Nothing behind it at all. Somebody just thought it would be a good idea once, and didn't bother with any kind of science.

A credit union here in Austin uses a number of booths with a phone, TV, camera, and pneumatic-tube system for interacting with the tellers. It's a bit strange. A news article from 2002 when they were installed cites security, along with efficiency as the reasons. Though it didn't indicate of robberies had been a big problem in the past.

Tony, not having worked in a bank you're not really in a position to comment on the effectiveness of the procedures. Your entire premise is based solely on the inconvenience factor and moral issues with the request of the hat removal. Taym's position is the same/similar. In fact there are significant religious and cultural issues with this requirement besides the ones already mentioned, turbans.

Unless the banks in the US are drastically different, they too should be losing more money due to employee errors or employee malfeasance than to external robbery, at every level, from the lowly branch to the highest corporate. Hat removal is theater.

Please note that by "hat" I don't mean motorcycle helmet or balaclava. Seeing a customer's face is definitely a requirement for
some transactions. But even here there's wiggle room. Most banks here require the use of an ATM card at the teller, with PIN verification. IMO, teller stations could also be outfitted with secure cash dispensers, though that would definitely be pricy.

But if you want to score more than $1-2000, you won't be robbing a bank teller anyway.

And with regards to camera from above - we've all seen plenty of useless footage where a perpetrator was not wearing a hat of any kind, which doesn't make the video any more revealing. You can't identify someone from looking at the top of their head, except maybe to tell if they're an Orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke.

But hey, I'm not arguing that you can't disagree.

I'll prefer to do business with places that don't treat its customers like would-be criminals.

So the bank you used leaves their cash stacked up the counter then ? Every bank to some extent has to treat the people that come into its branches (which by definition includes their customers) as would-be criminals. I'd be intrigued to hear all about the bank that you use that doesn't do so.

That's how they treat their money (not stacking it on the counter). Nothing to do with how they treat human customers.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority


Flashing your used-to-work-at-a-bank credentials doesn't mean anything unless you can refute my assertions that (a) many hats can be used to obscure the face, and (b) obscuring the face makes it harder to identify criminals on surveillance cameras. The fact that taking off one's hat is a very minor inconvenience is hardly the core of my argument, but it is certainly true.

The idea that I'm not "in a position to comment" is just your attempt to shut down debate when you don't have a legitimate logical argument. If you don't have any actual facts to bring to the table other than your employment history, I'll be exiting the conversation now.

If they could trust people coming into their branches and their staff to not steal the cash they wouldn't need to spend money on safes, secure cash draws, bullet proof screens between the people handling the cash and the public etc

All of these are signs that they are having to treat the public (and therefore their customers) as would be criminals. And apparently Bruno won't deal with businesses that do that.

Which is quite clearly bogus, as every business has to do that to some extent.

.. or even the banks themselves.

But clearly banks do exist, and customers are willing to loan them their hard-earned cash. A little personal respect in return seems reasonable.

Cheers

Andy, I think you're confusing protecting from criminals in a way that's passive to customers with treating customers themselves with a non-passive and invasive, no matter how minor, action. You can take that further if you'd like. Cash itself is serialized, contains at least a dozen or more security features, cameras are an assumption that everyone is a would-be criminal, etc. I suppose it's all a matter of where you draw the line.

Tony, I didn't mean to imply that you should stop debating nor that you weren't in a position to comment on hats. But having worked with specific security measures in some 20 branches does leave me with some education and experience on at least what used to be done, why, the expected effectiveness and anecdotally, on the actual effectiveness of those measures.

You're also now confusing two very different things and this goes to that slippery slope argument. Obscuring the face is distinct and separate from wearing a hat. One doesn't have to be connected to the other and that's why I have a problem with some blanket hat rule.

There are plenty of companies I don't and won't do business with, based on any number of factors, including policies I don't agree with.

If instead of looking up bullet points on debate and arguments instead you focus your attention to the hat subject, you'll find plenty of hits about the very subject in the US and other countries. One important factor to take away from any such observation is that this kind of security isn't universally accepted. There are plenty of institutions that are more than happy to point out they don't have any such policies in place. There are plenty of places to bank.

Though not related to security, If I saw someone giving grief to a breastfeeding mother in an establishment, I'd speak my mind there as well and would have no problem taking my business elsewhere. There are a lot of ass-clowns in the world, and a lot of businesses have them employed making policy unfortunately.

Here's the gist of the entire debate:

Tony:


Me: I do see it as a big enough deal to warrant doing business elsewhere. I have 4 banks all within walking distance, all should be fighting for customer patronage.

I don't see a problem with disagreeing.

So, if I can tease your position out a bit, you would be okay with a rule that bans anything that obscures customers' faces instead of a blanket hat rule?

I'm down with that.

We have policies like that around for banks and gas stations. I've never been asked to remove a hat that I was wearing. Just seems odd to hear it being enforced.

In this area, we don't have security guards in the bank branches either, though.

I'm against those kinds of rules. A rule implies that there are no exceptions. I don't think it would be right to ask someone who had a recent surgery to remove bandages from their face. I don't think it would be right to ask someone who covers their face for religious reasons to uncover.

I just don't think there needs to be a rule for this kind of thing.

Access to one's accounts already requires identification. If someone can identify themselves, then they should have access to their accounts.

Yeah, but this is someone who's robbing the bank. They're not going to identify themselves unless they want to appear on one of those World's Dumbest Criminals shows.

The policy would have to make exceptions for bandage scenario, but not only is that a five or six sigma event, but that person is already conspicuous, and can be given special attention by the bank staff (perhaps asking for identification) before they can leave a note demanding money. Someone who just wears a hat with a brim that can cover their face is in a grey area where they're not quite conspicuous enough, but they do have a reasonably effective way to obscure their face.

Oh, we did have this going on though:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/...robber-brk.html

"more likely" is an assumption itself. Which could be correct. I do not know. I know several organizations, including the one where I work, where a lot of debate has gone into which security measures should be adopted and why (including, where to place cameras, what type of ID should be used, what access control system to adopt, etc.). You're right in saying that evolutionary accident or whim can be the causes for many policies. But I also know for sure that that is not always the case.

Having said this. I did not say the no-hat policy is good or bad. I do not know.
I said that it could be good if backed up by real studies and evidence, and it could be wrong if based on no real factual reason. Both scenarios are possible as far as I can tell, and because of that I would not dismiss the no-hat policy without further info.

I'm sure this is related to security paranoia and the surveillance society that is sweeping the western world. As a libertarian-minded person (to put it mildly), I certainly support their right to have whatever rules they want on their property. But these things always feel like they are imposed upon the banks by governmental regulation, or possibly as insurance requirements (almost entirely regulated by the State). So, it feels awful to come across these things. You are being treated like the suspect of a felony, simply for doing your daily business. You are being surveilled and monitored constantly. It's absolutely the attitude of the police-state enforcers (TSA or otherwise) that is so disgusting. It wasn't, "Sir, please remove your hat it's our policy". It's a barking and commanding attitude. It's getting worse right before our eyes.

I'm just wondering if the policy also applies to tin-foil hats?

Like I said, fellas, look at the forest, not the trees.

It's quaint, but obtaining cash in excess of the daily ATM limit requires a visit to the teller.

Why are you carrying piles of cash around? Are you a closet drug dealer or money launderer?

Seriously though, it's hard to imagine a legitimate business any more that doesn't accept check or debit card.

Here in Belize, you often have to carry piles of cash because MANY places don't accept debit/credit (although the number that do has grown exponentially in the past 5 years).

Another log for the fire.

I am perhaps from an older age group. At one time merchants really didn't care to take plastic for minor purchases. Same for checks. Walking around money was an amount to get you through to the next pay day. And banks closed for the weekend. Yes things have changed.

The amount of money the banks rake in for those small transactions is enormous. The public would be up in arms if the gov was to propose a similar tax hike.

If more people resisted reaching for the plastic, there would be a windfall for the merchants, but competition & inflation will see to the erosion of it. The net effect is we all pay less.

Sadly, I don't expect John Q. is going to stop using plastic, I even use it, but this is mostly when cash cannot be tendered.

The value credit cards add over cash is not just convenience at the point of sale. I favor using my credit card because it's easier to track my expenses when every transaction is itemized. I would never have the patience to keep receipts for every cash transaction and tally them at the end of each month. Having this control over my finances saves me money in the long run, because I'm not making stupid spending decisions that will force me to borrow money later.

The real problem with credit card companies isn't the transaction fees, it's the high interest rates, late fees, etc. If they only give cards to people who pay their balance each month, they go bankrupt tomorrow.

The transaction fees are indeed higher than they'd be an open and competitive market without network effects, anticompetitive behavior, etc. but if you want to start breaking their stranglehold on the consumer, you need to do what the CFPB has done and hit them on the obscene late fees, confusing language in the agreements, and deceptive marketing practices. Focusing on trying to keep down transaction fees arguably attacks the one legitimate purpose they serve, and would force them to try to get more money from penalty interest and late fees on customers who are probably already in financial trouble.

There are plenty of underground transactions other than drugs or laundering that are served by cash.

Then there's also non-business transactions. If I owe someone money, I like to pay them in cash, not write them a cheque. To me a cheque is kind of like a fax. It makes me feel like I'm living my childhood back in the 70's/80's.

I prefer using cash for everything I can. It is easier, quicker, and I don't like the thought of a list of my spending habits on some computer somewhere. I think I'm just old fashioned also.

I can't see how it's easier. The amount of cash in your wallet is an easily-exhaustible resource, whereas if you have your credit card in your wallet, it doesn't run out until you hit your credit limit. So you don't have to worry about restocking your wallet with a trip to the ATM. Similarly, you just have to worry about the one piece of plastic (some people use more than one credit card, but that's a choice) whereas with cash, you have to differentiate between different denominations, do some quick math, etc. Then you have to take change back, and if you're diligent about it, count the change to make sure it's correct.

Seems like a lot more work to me.

I don't think it's faster, either. It's true that the speed advantage of credit cards is often overstated, but studies in this area seem dubious at best.

I'm not attacking you for your personal preference, and totally understand the privacy / Big Brother concerns. But speed and simplicity are not valid arguments for using cash.