Would You Like To "Opt-In" To Your Bank's Overdraft Fees? Tell The Federal Reserve! [Unauthorized Overdraft]

 

The Federal Reserve has proposed some new regulations that would, among other things, require banks to let you opt-out of the "overdraft protection" services that often result in consumers being charged large fees for buying one too many (or 6 too many) packs of gum with their debit cards. The Center for Responsible Lending thinks the programs should be "opt-in". Either way, without the overdraft program, your debit or atm transaction would be denied for non-sufficient funds and you would not be charged a overdraft fee.

From the Proposed Rules:

Among other things, the proposal would require institutions to provide consumers the ability to opt out of their institutions’ payment of overdrafts. The Board is proposing to amend Regulation DD to ensure that consumers receive effective disclosures about their right to opt out of overdraft services, by setting forth certain content, format and timing requirements for the notice.

The Center For Responsible Lending argues (emphasis ours):

Given the low likelihood that people will unsubscribe, the default policy should place consumers in the arrangement that provides them with the greatest benefit, which is clearly not one that costs Americans more in fees than the amount of the loans themselves. In fact, with debit overdrafts, the cost averages twice the amount of the transaction, while the cost of being denied is zero. If consumers were warned they would be charged a $34 fee for buying a $2 donut, they might instead choose to hand the clerk a $5 bill – or skip the donut. The proposed rule would only be justified if consumers preferred to be enrolled in these overdraft programs and received real benefits from them. But evidence overwhelmingly shows that consumers don’t want overdraft loans and don’t benefit from them; thus, they should not be strapped with the burden of escaping this expensive trap.

The Federal Reserve has asked that consumers who are affected by overdraft programs submit their opinion of the proposed rules. If you're interested in this issue, you can give the proposed rules a read (PDF) and then submit your comments to the Federal Reserve via email. To do so, place "Docket No. R-1315" in the subject of your email, and send it to: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov

If you'd like more information from the Center For Responsible Lending, you can get it here: "Support Opt-In Requirement for Overdraft Fees" (PDF)

Proposed Rules, Truth in Savings (PDF)
(Photo: Morton Fox )

US Supreme Courts: The Right to Bear Arms is For Individual Americans, Not Only State Militias

 

After 200 years of debate, the Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Second Amendment means that individual Americans - as opposed to state militias - have a constitutional right to own guns (at least in their homes).

In a tight 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." [...]

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Link | Previously on Neatorama: US Supreme Court to Review Right to Bear Arms

This McDonald's Charges 25¢ To Use A Credit Or Debit Card, Violates Merchant Agreement [Your Rights]

 

Reader Brandon sent us this picture of a McDonald's violating its merchant agreement by charging a fee for using a credit or debit card. The text reads, "FEE ASSOCIATED WITH CREDIT/DEBIT CARD OF 25¢ WILL BE APPLIED TO CARD TOTAL."

As we've previously suggested, Brandon reported the violation to Mastercard and Visa, as well as to McDonald's headquarters. To reiterate: most credit card companies' merchant agreements forbid merchants from charging a fee to pay with a credit card, asking for ID when you pay with a credit card, or adding a surcharge (merchants are usually allowed to give a discount for paying cash, however, if it's clearly labeled as such), and we encourage readers to report violations directly to the credit card company using the info here.

The MPAA Says They Shouldn't Need Proof To Sue You [Mpaa]

 

A legal brief submitted by an attorney representing The Motion Picture Association of America stated that intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect up to $150,000 per violation without having to actually prove infringement, Wired reports. The MPAA attorney, who seems to feel very inconvenienced by the whole "due process" thing writes, "It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement." Details, inside...

This document is among other briefs submitted to a judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial, the only RIAA case ever to go to trial. Thomas was sued by the RIAA for $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs on the Kazaa network. At the time, Judge Davis instructed jurors that they only needed to find that Thomas had an open share folder and not that the songs were actually copied or transferred. However, the judge has since suggested that he made have made a mistake in giving this instruction and is deciding whether to order a mistrial.

The article says,

The deadline to submit briefs to the judge was Friday. Among the briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association all jointly filed a brief, saying the law did not allow damages for "attempted" copyright infringement.

"Given the serious consequences that flow from copyright’s strict liability regime, the court should resist plaintiffs imprecations to expand that regime absent an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent," the groups wrote, noting that the language in the Copyright Act demands actual distribution to the public of protected works.

It was a similar brief in tone to the one that a group of 10 intellectual property scholars lodged earlier in the week.

But the MPAA, long an ally to the RIAA, which has sued more than 20,000 individuals for file sharing of copyrighted music, told Judge Davis that peer-to-peer users automatically should be liable for infringement.

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

It is absurd that lawyers, of all people, believe we should live in a society where clear and concrete proof needn't be necessary to establish one's guilt. Proving cases of copyright infringement is far from impossible. It is only a matter of spending the proper time and money to do so.

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits [Wired]
Capitol v. Thomas [Wiki]

Goodbye, George Carlin

 

George Carlin, legendary comedian and free speech advocate has died at age 71.

Here is a verbatim transcript of "Filthy Words," the George Carlin monologue at issue in the historic 1978 Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, prepared by the Federal Communications Commission.