Talk:Check 21 Act

message: The primary article states that no retaielrs have implemented this. What is Wal-Mart doing? They have a new system that allows them to scan the check at the register and hand it back to the consumer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjbrown99 (talk • contribs) 00:47, August 27, 2006  (UTC})
Essentially all Check 21 did was create a recourse for clearing houses called the substitute check.  The Check 21 Act has however helped check clearing under Check 21 authority be a more workable technology.  Also, Wal-Mart uses a system called POP (Point of Purchase ACH debit conversion) that falls under NACHA rules, not Check 21.
In the article there is this comment: "Not all banks have the ability to receive image files".  The truth be told, most banks do not have the ability to receive image files.  In fact, the issue is even deeper: the number of banks actually processing all of it's chacks as images internally, ie processing them as paper items or printing images as IRD's, and then processing the paper, may well be "zero".  Even the Federal Reserve is still substantially printing IRD's, sorting the paper and rescanning the documents to create on-going image files.
Then, there is this statement: "Several banks have plans for 'corporate capture'. Retailers, such as Walmart, can convert a paper check into an ACH (Automated Clearing House) debit."  These are two completely different technologies, and the Wal-Mart usage (since ceased) is actually of the ACH system, as noted in the paragraph, and doesn't involve check21 at all.
Further, there is a reference to ACH being less expensive than paper check processing.  While banks do not publish their costs associated with different processes, the banks we do business with tell us exactly the reverse is true and ACH is presently more expensive than processing paper checks. Perhaps as check volume declines (a reflection of increased use of credit and debit cards by consumers), this statement will someday become true but there isn't any evidence it is true today. In any event it is a totally unsupported statement, reflective more of the authors faith than demonstrated fact.  What is true is that banks charge depositors more for ACH transactions than for paper check deposits. What is also true is the ACH is not the subject of this article, and the whole discussion is moot.  Perhaps the author should expand the article to be titles "Check Electronification". 
This comment is somewhat mystifying: "Bank Customers may no longer be able to obtain autographs from cancelled checks endorsed by celebrity recipients. This practice may have been used by some charities to encourage donations [1] and may have also been used in other contexts as well."  What does this have to do with anything?
Lastly, the author makes this assertion: "Although banks will clear and receive the funds associated with a deposited transaction sooner and the issuer of the check may find that the funds are debited from his account faster, banks are not under an obligation to make these funds available to the account holder that deposited the check any faster." I was under the impression that all items deposited as a Check21 image had to be credited as good funds with two business days.  Items deposited as paper can still be cleared according to published check clearing schedules. It's a small distinction in the overall scheme of things, but one more clarification the author might consider making.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MdTrFn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am removing the Implications and Technical Details sections.  These sections are so far from being encyclopedic that they should not be in the main article.  They also have no citations, despite some of them being of a very technical and specific nature, and others being potentially POV.  I have moved them to Check 21 Act/RemovedSections in the interim to be improved before reincorporating them into the article.  --—Cliffb (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sections 

message: This article doesn't convey the sense that Check 21 is a radical departure from the way banks have traditionally worked.  The cancelled check was a key part of traditional checking.  The cancelled check is proof that a drawer has payed pursuant to the terms of the check.  Not only do you have proof, but you have the original paper and the original signature.  This is a right that bank consumers have, that has been taken away from them by special interests.
Check 21 nullifies attempts of banking consumers to protect themselves from banking fraud.  It is no longer possible to inspect the original paper of the check.  Experts cannot inspect the original signature or the ink used on the checks.  Watermarks are no longer useful, nor are special inks, microprinting, or other security features that were designed to stop check fraud.
Check 21 eliminates obligations banks usually had to their customers. It is a radical and profound change in our banking system, and it introduces lawlessness and chaos into our banking system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.179.52 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if "rant" is a technical term in wikipedia :)   but i would have to say it is rant indeeed.  it does raise an interesting question that i might take some time to research a bit, namely:  was there much controversy about the check 21 act when it was passed?  Is the POV represented above fringe-y and so we have no obligation to represent it in the article, or were there mainstream objections to truncation at that time and/or now?  If so, then it would be useful and legit to discuss it.Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Departure From traditional banking practices 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Check 21 Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224211128/http://www.x9.org/news/pr031028 to http://www.x9.org/news/pr031028
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified