-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
"Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote:
> Nothing new here. I often buy stuff on line and only get e-mail
> receipts. My credit card statements are a backup, I suppose. If
> anything the new law will strengthen our case with the IRS.
>
Possibly, but I also see language in the Act
(iv) informing the consumer (I) how, after the consent, the
consumer may, upon request, obtain a paper copy of an electronic
record, and (II) whether any fee will be charged for such copy;
So, what happens when they "inform" you that your statement has a fee?
Saying, of course, that the new fee was authorized by Congress?
Will lack of a fee be a competitive pressure? Remember how a few
years ago _every_ bank began adding statement fees? Even some credit
unions began charging. (I changed credit unions over this issue.)
I expect all ATMs to add a few words to the "Would you like a receipt?"
query, "for only 50 cents?"
It will be very hard for municipalities to outlaw such ATM charges,
as the Federal legislation explicitly supercedes state and local laws.
> I am more concerned about all the press coverage that suggests this
> law is about cryptographic signatures, retinal scans and the like,
> when its really about clicking "I Accept" buttons.
>
Yeah, CNet blew it again, even after being corrected in the past:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2179136.html
I was particularly amused in the WSJ article by Clinton's passphrase:
Buddy, the name of his dog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOWC6ctm/qMj6R+sxAQHa6wQAt89V8E4OJI7a0E7A6BZPRij96cgBaoiJ
3EdEr5BiHMB9grZ/1oRjsZ/G3AyeyohT4yD7+VhqZwxEDLFSU6rsYmnuuCmQzv3t
nxEycBIsJKAvDOGS683VutrDMOOMGSccCm3Gifien6O9wJaxHOPqwcPQa7r4HMH0
sNs07PRPCUs=
=ewsh
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
