Curb on check-cashing fingerprints sought
Lawmaker questions banks' anti-fraud policy
By STEVEN WALTERS
swalters@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 1, 2005
Madison - It was only a $98 check - his pay for delivering pizzas for a relative's restaurant - so state Sen. Jon Erpenbach was confused and then angry when told he would have to put his thumbprint on the check to cash it.
"I've never been fingerprinted before," the Middleton Democrat said, explaining why he declined the ink blotter the U.S. Bank teller pushed his way after Erpenbach showed a photo ID.
"That's going way beyond what I think is not only a right, but just a huge violation of personal privacy rights," Erpenbach said.
He had never heard of the practice of fingerprinting to cash a check, so he asked to speak with a supervisor, who told him a thumbprint signature is now a common practice to fight fraud - a problem that officials say costs $10 billion a year.
Because Erpenbach has no U.S. Bank account, the company did not have to cash his check, even though it was drawn on a U.S. Bank account.
Miffed, Erpenbach left the bank, check uncashed. The longer he thought about the incident, the madder he got.
His response?
He'll soon introduce a bill that would stop the practice of businesses such as banks fingerprinting anyone who is not being arrested as part of a criminal investigation. Exceptions would be allowed for professionals whose fingerprints must be kept on file and parents who want to have their child's fingerprints for security reasons, under his bill.
Because a draft of Erpenbach's proposal is not yet available, key details - how much violators might be fined, for example, and how it would affect police departments that are fingerprinting traffic violators - were not available.
But a U.S. Bank spokesman, Steve Dale, said thumbprints are given "tens of thousands" of times each year by non-customers doing business in his bank's Wisconsin branches. Only non-customers are asked for their fingerprints, Dale added.
And Kurt Bauer, president of the Wisconsin Bankers Association, said the Patriot Act requires that banks know their customers.
Erpenbach said he was not using his position as a senator to try to change state law because he felt personally slighted.
"There's no 'special privilege' here," he said. "If a constituent contacted me saying this happened to them, I'd be doing the same thing.
"What I'm trying to get at here is that you have financial institutions trying to collect as much information on people as they possible can, and for all sorts of reasons outside of 'We're just trying to crack down on fraud.' "
Erpenbach said, "I don't know why they feel that they can do this, but, obviously, they feel they can, so we need legislation and a law to tell them that they can't."
Wisconsin banks have been using thumbprint signatures to fight fraud since about 1997, and 30% to 40% of banks in the state now do so when asked to deal with non-customers, Bauer said.
"The idea is that someone attempting to pass a stolen, counterfeit or altered check is very likely to be deterred by the prospect of law enforcement having a copy of their fingerprint for later identification purposes," Bauer said in an e-mail.
Nothing happens to the thumbprint signature if there no fraud, Bauer and Dale said. "It is only used if the check is determined to be fraudulent," Bauer said.
In Erpenbach's case, his thumbprint would not have been entered into any database or even passed on to law officers, Bauer and Dale said.
"I apologize to the senator, if we caused him some embarrassment or inconvenience," said Dale, who noted all that was asked of Erpenbach was "what we ask of any other person. . . . We didn't know him."
"A thumbprint is actually just another form of ID," Dale said. "It's a very reputable form of ID - your thumbprint is always going to be you."
The U.S. Bank spokesman said checks with thumbprints are treated as any other check if there is no fraud involved: A picture is taken of the check for company records, and the check is eventually destroyed.
If fraud occurs, then the check and thumbprint are turned over to the local police department or other law enforcement agencies.
But Erpenbach said that because his fingerprints have never been taken before, they aren't on file anywhere. So, in his case, it wouldn't have done any good to turn his thumbprint over to any law enforcement agency, even if he had attempted bank fraud.
"My whole point is that there are things about people that are very personal - DNA, retina and fingerprints," Erpenbach said. "I don't want anybody outside of law enforcement - if I've been arrested and only if I've been arrested - to have that information."
Bauer said the Wisconsin Bankers Association would not take a position on Erpenbach's bill until the details of the measure are known.
But the thumbprint signature is not an invasion of privacy, he said, because financial institutions are not required to cash checks for non-customers. Also, he noted, non-customers can refuse to give their fingerprints and go to their own bank to cash a check.
Lawmaker questions banks' anti-fraud policy
By STEVEN WALTERS
swalters@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 1, 2005
Madison - It was only a $98 check - his pay for delivering pizzas for a relative's restaurant - so state Sen. Jon Erpenbach was confused and then angry when told he would have to put his thumbprint on the check to cash it.
"I've never been fingerprinted before," the Middleton Democrat said, explaining why he declined the ink blotter the U.S. Bank teller pushed his way after Erpenbach showed a photo ID.
"That's going way beyond what I think is not only a right, but just a huge violation of personal privacy rights," Erpenbach said.
He had never heard of the practice of fingerprinting to cash a check, so he asked to speak with a supervisor, who told him a thumbprint signature is now a common practice to fight fraud - a problem that officials say costs $10 billion a year.
Because Erpenbach has no U.S. Bank account, the company did not have to cash his check, even though it was drawn on a U.S. Bank account.
Miffed, Erpenbach left the bank, check uncashed. The longer he thought about the incident, the madder he got.
His response?
He'll soon introduce a bill that would stop the practice of businesses such as banks fingerprinting anyone who is not being arrested as part of a criminal investigation. Exceptions would be allowed for professionals whose fingerprints must be kept on file and parents who want to have their child's fingerprints for security reasons, under his bill.
Because a draft of Erpenbach's proposal is not yet available, key details - how much violators might be fined, for example, and how it would affect police departments that are fingerprinting traffic violators - were not available.
But a U.S. Bank spokesman, Steve Dale, said thumbprints are given "tens of thousands" of times each year by non-customers doing business in his bank's Wisconsin branches. Only non-customers are asked for their fingerprints, Dale added.
And Kurt Bauer, president of the Wisconsin Bankers Association, said the Patriot Act requires that banks know their customers.
Erpenbach said he was not using his position as a senator to try to change state law because he felt personally slighted.
"There's no 'special privilege' here," he said. "If a constituent contacted me saying this happened to them, I'd be doing the same thing.
"What I'm trying to get at here is that you have financial institutions trying to collect as much information on people as they possible can, and for all sorts of reasons outside of 'We're just trying to crack down on fraud.' "
Erpenbach said, "I don't know why they feel that they can do this, but, obviously, they feel they can, so we need legislation and a law to tell them that they can't."
Wisconsin banks have been using thumbprint signatures to fight fraud since about 1997, and 30% to 40% of banks in the state now do so when asked to deal with non-customers, Bauer said.
"The idea is that someone attempting to pass a stolen, counterfeit or altered check is very likely to be deterred by the prospect of law enforcement having a copy of their fingerprint for later identification purposes," Bauer said in an e-mail.
Nothing happens to the thumbprint signature if there no fraud, Bauer and Dale said. "It is only used if the check is determined to be fraudulent," Bauer said.
In Erpenbach's case, his thumbprint would not have been entered into any database or even passed on to law officers, Bauer and Dale said.
"I apologize to the senator, if we caused him some embarrassment or inconvenience," said Dale, who noted all that was asked of Erpenbach was "what we ask of any other person. . . . We didn't know him."
"A thumbprint is actually just another form of ID," Dale said. "It's a very reputable form of ID - your thumbprint is always going to be you."
The U.S. Bank spokesman said checks with thumbprints are treated as any other check if there is no fraud involved: A picture is taken of the check for company records, and the check is eventually destroyed.
If fraud occurs, then the check and thumbprint are turned over to the local police department or other law enforcement agencies.
But Erpenbach said that because his fingerprints have never been taken before, they aren't on file anywhere. So, in his case, it wouldn't have done any good to turn his thumbprint over to any law enforcement agency, even if he had attempted bank fraud.
"My whole point is that there are things about people that are very personal - DNA, retina and fingerprints," Erpenbach said. "I don't want anybody outside of law enforcement - if I've been arrested and only if I've been arrested - to have that information."
Bauer said the Wisconsin Bankers Association would not take a position on Erpenbach's bill until the details of the measure are known.
But the thumbprint signature is not an invasion of privacy, he said, because financial institutions are not required to cash checks for non-customers. Also, he noted, non-customers can refuse to give their fingerprints and go to their own bank to cash a check.