A scam here in Baltimore that keeps occurring is that the squeege kids will run up on someone unsuspecting and start cleaning their windshield.
They will pressure the driver for a tip, and the driver will say they don’t have cash of course.
They will say that’s cool, you can send me a tip. They ask the driver for their phone so they can look up their cashapp for them, and bam the driver got scammed.
What’s happening is that the squeege kid is looking up his account on your phone, and then sending himself like $2,000.
People have complained that cashapp won’t help, and their bank isn’t letting them dispute the charge.
In my opinion, this is clearly an anti pattern on Cashapps end, and I would imagine at least one engineer would have spotted this vulnerability by now. I would think that Cashapp would build in a simple pin confirmation before a stranger could wire themselves a couple thousand dollars. This has bugged me for the last 2 years lol
It has nothing to do with Cash app. It could just as well be Zelle, or PayPal, or Venmo, or physical cash.
The link's whole thesis is that Cash App doesn't really care, which is why criminals prefer it. Being so radically frictionless for the underbanked also facilitates scams, including those that distinguish between theft and fraud.
I'm not familiar with this situation, but I'm assuming that whoever is doing this isn't there to "clean" your windshield, and that the entire "transaction" is imbued with the implicit threat of violence and intimidation. You're essentially being robbed through other means. If this isn't the case, then I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong, but that's how it reads to me.
not in the US - millions of people keep loaded guns in their vehicles
> During the Coronavirus pandemic, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared to over 21.52 million – a 48% increase since 2016.
Given that some states are "constitutional carry" (21 states) and do NOT require a permit if you legally own the gun, the actual number of people who HAVE a gun and can carry it would be higher than 21 million. They even do the math:
> To summarize, the total number of permits in the US is at least 21.52 million. Add in people who legally carry without a permit, and the number clearly becomes much larger. While 8.3% of the adult population has permits, the percentage of Americans who say that they carry most or all the time is about 5.4%.
5.4% of Americans is about 17 million people, the majority of which will carry when in their vehicle. (Note that legally and technically you are "conceal carrying" in many states if the gun is IN the vehicle, not locked, even if it is NOT on your person - so if you're married and YOU carry, you will want your spouse to get a CCW also even if he or she never carries, because if you're both in the car, the gun is in the center console, and you step out to get gas, your spouse is now concealing).
Someone tried to sell her a rock at a traffic light. When she wouldn't buy it, they used it to smash her rear driver's side window and grab whatever they could from inside the car.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...
over two million background checks for firearms purchases are performed each month, and this number is rising, and the number of people who are being background checked for the first time is rapidly rising (fastest growing group - black women)
by 2030 there will likely be a half billion firearms in the US
there are more fully automatic rifles registered to individuals in Texas (40k) than are in possession of many NATO armies...for semi-auto pistols and rifles, Texas residents outgun most NATO armies by a substantial margin
these are stats that both gun advocacy and opposition groups will be happy to validate (each believe the numbers support their position)
anecdotally, it is very common here in Texas to read of traffic altercations in which both parties involved in road rage incidents were carrying in their vehicles...it is widespread
Also according to the Small Arms Survey, Texas has five times as many guns as the US military.
Though the US military ones are more likely to have select fire and fully automatic but those are only particularly useful in certain situations.
Not really. By the time a seat-belted person gets to their gun, whether in a holster, under the seat, in a purse, or in the glove box, the thief is long gone.
Real life is very different from the movies.
I remember a few years back there was some controversy about how police are trained to shoot first and one of the things that bubbled up then was a video (I think produced by someone teaching the police) of a seated driver drawing a gun and having it pointed out the window in a fraction of a second. The gun was in a holster down by the seat belt buckle. And the next instant it was pointing out the driver's window.
Joe Lunchbucket isn't likely to be so agile.
I want to live in a world where I can trust a random stranger, not suspect them of robbing me. Justifying some extra protections like a pin or a fingerprint check to finalize a transactions should not be this big of a deal.
They are all actually pretty intelligent individually, and they come up with some pretty clever things to get into. A bunch of them come from rough homes, and they are usually taking the cash home to support their family, even at 15. They are supposed to be in school, but they skip to go squeege because they don’t feel like the things in school are relating to their struggle. They have tried the regular 16 year old jobs, but that doesn’t pay enough to cover their struggling mom and siblings. Instead of losing out to low wages and income taxes, they find it much easier to pick up a squeege from a gas station, and start making some instant cash in tips.
These kids are super smart lol. Pressure breeds diamonds. They know how to hack the Lyme scooters and ride around and commit crimes. They know how to scam you out of your cashapp balance. And they really know how to download and build burner handgun kits from Defense Distributed :(
If somebody chooses you, you're not choosing at random.
Let's simplify. Say that 1 in a million people pull the stranger needing help scam, and will approach you given the opportunity. Everybody else will only approach you if they actually need help, which is rare, say 1 in a million.
So in that scenario 50% of the people approaching you are criminals, compared to 1 in a million who are actually criminals.
This is and always has been utterly delusional.
If you get aggressive, they will spit on your window, break your wipers off, and hit your car.
Things can get really ugly if you get out of your car and try to confront them: https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justic...
A bunch of their transaction volume is scam money that is hard to reverse, and it’s not Blocks fault as you say.
It’s a negligent move for sure, but a crime is still a crime.
Having someone steal your money without your consent is still theft and they are still the perpetrator of the crime.
The victim-blaming mentality on the internet is wild. Being negligent or naive doesn’t shift 100% of the blame to the victim when a crime occurs.
Two things can be true at once: the perpetrator of a crime is the one responsible, AND the victim might have avoided victimhood had they acted more prudently.
Humans communicate in stories. The “cautionary tale” or example of folly that led to woe is a pattern as old as our species could talk.
It is NOT true that cautioning people not to act imprudently, and providing an example, is “victim blaming”. I don’t hear anyone saying that we should not pursue and prosecute the perpetrator.
So just can it with the hair trigger “victim blaming” accusation.
> caution others to behave wisely to help avoid being victimized in the same way
In this case though this is not a caution to others, it's literally a statement of victim shaming/blaming.
Nobody is claiming the criminals are blameless or that a crime is not a crime.
It's astoundingly dumb to hand a piece of electronics worth several hundred dollars to someone in such an interaction, even if they cannot use it to electronically steal your money.
The criminal is a criminal, and the person who hands their phone to someone under these circumstances is mind bogglingly naive. The former fact is tautological so it's natural to focus on the latter part, the one that boggles the mind. How could anybody possibly fall for this? Were they very young? Were they old? Were they distracted or drunk or lulled by the perpetrator? Were they out of towners? Were they intimidated? One wonders.
I think this might be an actual generational difference; I feel weird letting someone else use my phone or using someone else's phone now. I can remember a time when phones were much more communal - the family shared a phone, and public phones existed, and I wonder if older folks are a bit more locked into that way of thinking. Obviously a phone is much more than a phone now however.
On the other hand, my phone causes ringing on my phone, my IPad and my work laptop: for the love of G-d don’t just watch it or tell me it is ringing, answer the damn phone. U less it says likely scam of course.
A guy did exactly what you said, and they snapped his wipers off his truck. He parked highly upset, and stepped out with a bat to confront the kids. One of them pulled out a handgun and shot the dude down right in rush hour traffic.
She lost her job, and the city started enforcing a no squeege ban.
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/nubank-wil...
Your mentality is typical of people from low-trust societies - "lol those naive Westerners" (lokhi[0] in Russian). But while individuals in high-trust societies can indeed be lokhi, everyone in a low-trust society is, collectively. They are giving up on the social development and institutions that only work well when trust in people you don't know is a societal value. They are defective at best, and nonexistent at worst, in a society where everyone treats each other with scepticism, disdain and distrust by default, until proven otherwise.
[0] https://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/lokh/index.html (sorry for RT)
Thing is, it's not the case. The world outside of a narrow circle of rich, white, Protestant countries has never been like this, and those countries too, are losing it because of changing racial composition, and immigration from low-trust cultures. And in a global world, high-trust groups are simply being taken advantage of.
Honestly the fact that some govt employee in india got so much right that all the sv startups could not is truly baffling.
Right now, muggers can't take $1000 out of my wallet because I don't have $1000 in my wallet. They cannot force me to use an ATM to empty my bank account because my ATM daily limits are set to $500/day.
But, in theory, they could empty it if I was on Cashapp.
Cashapp, like so many tech startups rushing to replace incumbent taxi and hotel and other services with phone apps, has missed Chesterton's fence on this state of affairs in its hurry to become the key part of "providing everyone with access to important financial services so they can fully participate in the economy."
When I moved to california my debit card got skimmed at a Lucky grocery store. Ever since then I've made sure that my debit card, venmo, paypal, and all my other money accounts are linked to a checking account that only has $500 in it. If I need to transfer someone more than that I'll transfer money into that account from my real checking account.
So, just avoid CashApp and Zelle.
And another euphemism.
This is the 12th reply to your post and first one to point this out. I think this report is trying to ride well-off people's lack of awareness of CashApp. Kinda what they're accusing Block of doing, which is funny.
</s>
And then there is also the racial-related aspect of it all, not sure the Hindenburg analysts were aware of it. As in there is no white rapper in that video of theirs.
Block targets Black Americans. This is like complaining about a gardening company’s analysts only talking about gardeners.
Even worse. So one of the companies that tries to address/serve the black demographic is being put down but what I assume are not black financial analysts.
Like I've said, this Hindenburg company seems to not be aware of the whole societal background.
This sounds like Adani’s defenders getting mad about Hindenburg not being Indian. Fraud is fraud. Their specialty is fraud. Why is fraud okay or not depending on who’s committing it?
The intended outrage here is "ghetto males" doing illegal things with money, using the cell phone, and bragging about it. The parent post here points to major just-under-the-surface problems with this kind of personal, borderline racist attack at the societal scale. Definitely concur here that a perfectly-enforced police state is not desirable, mostly because it is not possible, and the more force that is used in the remaining edge cases, makes things much worse overall, at too high a cost.
On a more general note I'm also curious about what you mention at the end of your comment, i.e. those higher societal costs are keep piling up, I'm wondering where is it all going to end.
Indeed, white rap artists are very underrepresented in mainstream popular music. There is a case for it being discrimination based on skin colour.
Well, that should be easy to fix...
Write a rap about Cash App’s smooth user interface
Verse 1:
I got my Cash App, it's all good
Smooth interface, you know it's understood
Sending money with just a tap
It's so easy, no need to unwrap
Splitting the bill, it's a breeze
With Cash App, it's done with ease
Chorus:
Cash App, Cash App, it's the way to go
Smooth user interface, don't you know?
Sending money, paying friends
Cash App's the one that never ends
Verse 2:
I'm scrolling through my contact list
Sending cash, it's never missed
No need to fumble for my wallet
Cash App's got my back, I never falter
Transactions so quick and fast
Cash App's smooth interface, it lasts
Chorus:
Cash App, Cash App, it's the way to go
Smooth user interface, don't you know?
Sending money, paying friends
Cash App's the one that never ends
Verse 3:
I'm feeling so fly, Cash App's got me covered
No need to worry, no need to suffer
With Cash App, I'm always on top
Making transactions, it's never a flop
From paying rent to splitting a meal
Cash App's smooth interface seals the deal
Chorus:
Cash App, Cash App, it's the way to go
Smooth user interface, don't you know?
Sending money, paying friends
Cash App's the one that never ends
Outro:
Cash App's smooth user interface, it's the best
From East Coast to West, it passes the test
Sending money with ease, it's so cool
Cash App's the way, and that's the rule.The fraudulent activity is obviously a problem, but I'm not sure how to separate this association from, say, bragging about buying Gucci with drug money, street racing in a Dodge Hellcat, or performing drive-bys in a Revel.
And indeed for any luxury brand that exists. I still don't understand how that makes the app itself a fraud.
This is marketing not moral reasoning, and as customers, please encourage other customers to have a low tolerance for being blamed for fraud.
1. It's visual and memorable.
2. It leaves you wondering what the hell Dorsey and "Cash App Studios" were thinking when they promoted these guys.
3. It strongly bolsters their case that Block were asleep at the wheel with respect to criminal activity, probably intentionally.
We all know that Silicon Valley firms are obsessed with not being racist but didn't anyone there wonder what the guys were rapping about for even a second? Or why they'd name an entire song after the app? That isn't in any way normal behavior for rappers. Surely someone watched it and realized that, um, this isn't actually good PR, these guys are saying they use Cash App to pay for all sorts of criminal activity. Why? If it's once to make a rhyme then it's an artistic choice, if it's >1000 times that can't be a coincidence.
To be so blind to activity so obvious that you're literally boasting about it on stage in front of a bunch of bankers implies a massive breakdown of AML obligations. And that would indeed be short-worthy.
JUST MARRIED
SEND US SOME LOVE
CASHAPP: xxxxxxxxxWhoever had my card used it for CashApp transactions (I didn't even know this was possible?), ultimately creating ~15 transactions of varying sizes, all less than $100. It took a while to unwind, and in the end my case was actually denied (!) for 1 of them.
I bet I counted as a new user, with $100+ in transaction volume. :)
Just because of this interaction, my disposition towards Cash App has tilted into the negative, and I literally didn't have an opinion on it before. Regardless of any number-juicing they may have indulged in, their fraud-detection tech has to be better, it's not doing them any long-term favors.
Hindenburg made a music video compiling the references that is...uh...worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StjWk3Mj-M4