Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Challenging it in court is an impossible burden for most people, so the most important thing is the default. Do we want the bank to assume you're a criminal, or do we want to assume you're innocent and make the police be the ones to prove if you're not?

View on HN

The DMCA, with all its faults, outlines a challenge process performed largely outside the courts. Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates. If the bank is then sued by government or third party, it is "safe-havened" by such proof. If proof is found to be false, the company is responsible, not the bank.

Yes, that's sounds like a very reasonable system. I like that it shift burden of law enforcement from banks onto actual law enforcement system with proper checks and balances.

> Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates

You're describing your state banking regulator. Also, like a bajillion federal banking regulators.

Well then, something clearly is not working in that process, if we're here.

> something clearly is not working in that process, if we're here

The article talks about credit card networks. I'm referring to banks. Banks are highly regulated, including with respect to account closures. Credit card networks are much less regulated.

If you want a non-court public venue to dispute your bank on something, anything, you have several such venues. Depending on your state, they can be quite toothsome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com