It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
the IT cubicle soon...

--
long sig
https://i.imgur.com/M1WNQ6q.png

bad sector wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...

Yes, that's happening. There are a few sites out there that assume that
everybody is using Chrome, and don't care about anything else.
Sometimes, other Chromium-derived browsers (Opera, Iron, Epic, Edge,
etc.) will work, but occasionally, it's Chrome or nothing.

You didn't indicate whether you're getting an explicit objection from
the bank or just that the page is not adequately functional. If the
former (where the page is doing sniffing for the User-Agent string that
you're showing), you may be able to get around that by spoofing a
different UA string in Firefox. To do that, you can make a tweak via
about:config, where you add an entry that's specific to your bank:

Create an entry for the problem server name:

general.useragent.override.www.mybank.com

Then set the value to show a valid Chrome string (I just copied this one
from a current release):

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML,
like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

If the bank is just checking for a preferred UA string this should be
enough to get around any blocks. However, it is possible that Google
has already implemented something unique in Chrome (probably related to
scripting) that Firefox doesn't have, but the bank is already using and
may not even be in other Chromium browsers. However, unique features
tend to be more common with entertainment-oriented sites, especially the
ones with DRM content.

I've found this particular condition of demanding specific browsers and
versions to be especially common with financial institutions.They're
they ones that are most often insistent that you use only the browsers
(and versions) that they permit. Sometimes, objecting to older browsers
is a way of making sure you're running something reasonably recent,
enough that most security holes are patched. Also, objecting to certain
browsers (especially older ones) is a useful way of defending against
bot activity. There are a lot of bots that also do spoofing, and
keeping the list of authorized browsers short is an easy way of
discarding a lot of bot traffic.

However, with financial institutions, I'm convinced that a lot insist on
specific browser versions as a function of their customer support. If
they're providing support, then they want you running *exactly* the same
version as their support people are seeing, and if the two don't match,
they don't want to waste time and effort of trying to translate your
display to what they're seeing. Even if an objection message is worded
about capacities, the layout differences even between Firefox 102 ESR
and Firefox 115 ESR are enough that already, some are beginning to
demand Firefox 115 as a minimum, even if the capacities of Firefox 78 or
even Firefox 60 are adequate. The UI difference between getting to
configs via Edit -> Preferences and Tools -> Settings is enough to cause
them to refuse.

For your particular case, the same principle applies, just that the site
has decided that Chrome is a standard, and as a result, they're going to
Chrome exclusively, and where they're unwilling to invest anything
(whether development or user support) on anything else. And I think
there's nothing you are going to be able to do to change that.

At that stage, your choices are:

- See if you can get spoofing to work with Firefox, as described above.
- See if you can get another Chromium browser (e.g., Epic, Iron, etc.)
to work.
- Accept their demand for Chrome
- Take your business to another bank

If you move to another bank, I wouldn't even bother with an indignant
message to customer service. Just leave quietly, because they've
already decided that you're not worth their effort.

Smith

On 01/11/2023 15:41, NFN Smith wrote:
> bad sector wrote:
>>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
>> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
>> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
>> the IT cubicle soon...

> For your particular case, the same principle applies, just that the site
> has decided that Chrome is a standard, and as a result, they're going to
> Chrome exclusively, and where they're unwilling to invest anything
> (whether development or user support) on anything else. And I think
> there's nothing you are going to be able to do to change that.
>
> At that stage, your choices are:
>
> - See if you can get spoofing to work with Firefox, as described above.
> - See if you can get another Chromium browser (e.g., Epic, Iron, etc.)
> to work.
> - Accept their demand for Chrome
> - Take your business to another bank
>
> If you move to another bank, I wouldn't even bother with an indignant
> message to customer service. Just leave quietly, because they've
> already decided that you're not worth their effort.

I would check first before moving to a new bank to see if they have
plans to restrict online banking to Chrome.

--

Jeff

On 01.11.23 15:31, bad sector wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...

My bank here in Switzerland accepts all browsers and FF even with a
calibrated NoScript extension.

This will not help you but:

1. The IT-department of your bank is dysfunctional.
2. Your bank is dysfunctional as a bank.

I would never ever use Chrome or even a Chromium based browser to do
banking business.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/1/23 11:41, NFN Smith wrote:
> bad sector wrote:
>>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never
>> use any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The
>> girl at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to
>> hear from the IT cubicle soon...
>
> Yes, that's happening.  There are a few sites out there that assume that
> everybody is using Chrome, and don't care about anything else.
> Sometimes, other Chromium-derived browsers (Opera, Iron, Epic, Edge,
> etc.) will work, but occasionally, it's Chrome or nothing.
>
> You didn't indicate whether you're getting an explicit objection from
> the bank or just that the page is not adequately functional.  If the
> former (where the page is doing sniffing for the User-Agent string that
> you're showing), you may be able to get around that by spoofing a
> different UA string in Firefox. To do that, you can make a tweak via
> about:config, where you add an entry that's specific to your bank:
>
> Create an entry for the problem server name:
>
>   general.useragent.override.www.mybank.com
>
> Then set the value to show a valid Chrome string (I just copied this one
> from a current release):
>
>   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML,
> like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
>
> If the bank is just checking for a preferred UA string this should be
> enough to get around any blocks.  However, it is possible that Google
> has already implemented something unique in Chrome (probably related to
> scripting) that Firefox doesn't have, but the bank is already using and
> may not even be in other Chromium browsers. However, unique features
> tend to be more common with entertainment-oriented sites, especially the
> ones with DRM content.
>
> I've found this particular condition of demanding specific browsers and
> versions to be especially common with financial institutions.They're
> they ones that are most often insistent that you use only the browsers
> (and versions) that they permit. Sometimes, objecting to older browsers
> is a way of making sure you're running something reasonably recent,
> enough that most security holes are patched. Also, objecting to certain
> browsers (especially older ones) is a useful way of defending against
> bot activity.  There are a lot of bots that also do spoofing, and
> keeping the list of authorized browsers short is an easy way of
> discarding a lot of bot traffic.
>
> However, with financial institutions, I'm convinced that a lot insist on
> specific browser versions as a function of their customer support. If
> they're providing support, then they want you running *exactly* the same
> version as their support people are seeing, and if the two don't match,
> they don't want to waste time and effort of trying to translate your
> display to what they're seeing. Even if an objection message is worded
> about capacities, the layout differences even between Firefox 102 ESR
> and Firefox 115 ESR are enough that already, some are beginning to
> demand Firefox 115 as a minimum, even if the capacities of Firefox 78 or
> even Firefox 60 are adequate.  The UI difference between getting to
> configs via Edit -> Preferences and Tools -> Settings is enough to cause
> them to refuse.
>
> For your particular case, the same principle applies, just that the site
> has decided that Chrome is a standard, and as a result, they're going to
> Chrome exclusively, and where they're unwilling to invest anything
> (whether development or user support) on anything else. And I think
> there's nothing you are going to be able to do to change that.
>
> At that stage, your choices are:
>
> - See if you can get spoofing to work with Firefox, as described above.
> - See if you can get another Chromium browser (e.g., Epic, Iron, etc.)
> to work.
> - Accept their demand for Chrome
> - Take your business to another bank
>
> If you move to another bank, I wouldn't even bother with an indignant
> message to customer service.  Just leave quietly, because they've
> already decided that you're not worth their effort.
>
> Smith

Thanks for the detailed input!

First of all I was caught totally by surprise, no advance warning, no
NOTHING. I try to log-in to pay some bills and bingo. This bank's IT
department has many times failed to impress me. It took 2 years of
argument to get them to accept passwords longer than ten (and at that
restricted) characters, today on the phone they wanted me to key-in my
since then extended 70 character password. They ain't the sharpest
knives in the drawer to put it very, very politely!

If I spoof I just reinforce their lunacy. BTW I doubt very much that
security be their objective since on that count their favorites are
hanging by threads:

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/ca/business/software/secure-browsers/

...but there IS a movenment afoot to so complicate user autentication
that only the big COMMERCIAL snoops get a slice of the targetable
data-cake (I don't remember the name of the gimmick off hand).

Interim I plan to challenge them, as publicaly as possible if necessary,
if that don't work then I'm prepared to can the internet iterface and go
to the physical cubicle with all my needs.

In <ya6dnSCMALAu5d_4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> writes:

[full snip]

Try sending a complaint to your State's Banking COmmission.

While they likely don't have direct jurisdiction over
this issue, there's a good chance they'll foward your
note to their contact at your bank. And that will get
a lot more attention than anything you send to the
bank from your own home.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 11/1/23 12:05, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 01.11.23 15:31, bad sector wrote:
>>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
>> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
>> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
>> the IT cubicle soon...
>
> My bank here in Switzerland accepts all browsers and FF even with a
> calibrated NoScript extension.
>
> This will not help you but:
>
> 1. The IT-department of your bank is dysfunctional.
> 2. Your bank is dysfunctional as a bank.
>
> I would never ever use Chrome or even a Chromium based browser to do
> banking business.

I recounted my predicament to a contact is Sweden with similar problems
and also noted that I was tethered to my wife's phone due to a temporary
technical issue at my net provider. He said that maybe an unusual IP
address is what triggered the panic, a major canadian bank is facing
gargantuan lawsuits for having 'allowed' (this gotta be a joke!) some
customers to get ripped off. I have no idea as I am still awaiting their
IT response. But you are right about not holding them in high esteem :-)

On 11/1/23 12:19, danny burstein wrote:
> In <ya6dnSCMALAu5d_4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> writes:
>
> [full snip]
>
> Try sending a complaint to your State's Banking COmmission.
>
> While they likely don't have direct jurisdiction over
> this issue, there's a good chance they'll foward your
> note to their contact at your bank. And that will get
> a lot more attention than anything you send to the
> bank from your own home.

thanks, noted.

On 01.11.23 17:52, bad sector wrote:
> On 11/1/23 12:05, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> I would never ever use Chrome or even a Chromium based browser to do
>> banking business.
>
> I recounted my predicament to a contact is Sweden with similar problems
> and also noted that I was tethered to my wife's phone due to a temporary
> technical issue at my net provider. He said that maybe an unusual IP
> address is what triggered the panic, a major canadian bank is facing
> gargantuan lawsuits for having 'allowed' (this gotta be a joke!) some
> customers to get ripped off. I have no idea as I am still awaiting their
> IT response. But you are right about not holding them in high esteem :-)

I wish you good luck!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/1/23 07:31, bad sector wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...

I install both Firefox (Gecko) and Brave Browser
(Blink) on my customers machines. Both have
good security. Brave is considered "grandparent
safe". (At last count, I have nine browsers
on my machine.)

I tell them if one does not work, use the other.
And to stay off Internet Explorer, Edge, and
Chrome.

Fighting with the bank will probably get
you nowhere. Gecko just does not have the
market share as Blink, so they simply
think the problem is you being stubborn and
not them being lazy asses.

On 11/1/23 10:31, bad sector wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...

I still have no official response but I got it working with Firefox and
nothing changed so either they fixed the FUBAR or it was because I was
tethered to the wife's iPhone. I'll report when I hear from them :-)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:31:10 -0400, bad sector wrote:

> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...

Does this help?

<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/>

Banks are doing the same all over the world. They don't want to pay
extra for Fx support.

And it's getting worse [OT]: my bank sent me a message stating that as
of November 1 I wouldn't be able to use the bank's app anymore for
online payments. I had to switch to either Payconiq or ... Google Pay or
Apple Pay. WTF!?

--
s|b

On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 14:57:03 +0100, s|b wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:31:10 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never
>> use any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The
>> girl at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear
>> from the IT cubicle soon...
>
> Does this help?
>
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/>
>
> Banks are doing the same all over the world. They don't want to pay
> extra for Fx support.
>
> And it's getting worse [OT]: my bank sent me a message stating that as
> of November 1 I wouldn't be able to use the bank's app anymore for
> online payments. I had to switch to either Payconiq or ... Google Pay or
> Apple Pay. WTF!?

I don't know what gives but they are getting increasingly arrogant,
severely understaffed being my hunch!

Spoofing user agents would only make any favoritism worse, I will not
bend. I want all sites I visit to work with any preferences setting in any
browser even is using the TOR browser, exception for video streamnrs like
netflix etc. Others, banks certainly, will simply see me LEAVE if they get
too PUCKING obnoxious.

In THIS particular case they have backed off the Chrome bit, it may or may
not have been just a help-desk issue, I'll never know.

On 02.11.23 14:57, s|b wrote:
> Banks are doing the same all over the world. They don't want to pay
> extra for Fx support.

Bullshit. My bank does for two decades and most banks in Europe do.
The reputation of Chrome is not particularly good outside the US.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 02.11.23 14:57, s|b wrote:
> Banks are doing the same all over the world. They don't want to pay
> extra for Fx support.

You are definitely trying to spread FUD and a lot of nonsense.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 1 Nov 2023 12:11:32 -0400, bad
sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:

>On 11/1/23 11:41, NFN Smith wrote:
>> bad sector wrote:
>>>
>>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never
>>> use any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The
>>> girl at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to
>>> hear from the IT cubicle soon...
>>
>> Yes, that's happening.  There are a few sites out there that assume that
>> everybody is using Chrome, and don't care about anything else.
>> Sometimes, other Chromium-derived browsers (Opera, Iron, Epic, Edge,
>> etc.) will work, but occasionally, it's Chrome or nothing.
>>
>> You didn't indicate whether you're getting an explicit objection from
>> the bank or just that the page is not adequately functional.  If the
>> former (where the page is doing sniffing for the User-Agent string that
>> you're showing), you may be able to get around that by spoofing a
>> different UA string in Firefox. To do that, you can make a tweak via
>> about:config, where you add an entry that's specific to your bank:
>>
>> Create an entry for the problem server name:
>>
>>   general.useragent.override.www.mybank.com
>>
>> Then set the value to show a valid Chrome string (I just copied this one
>> from a current release):
>>
>>   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML,
>> like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

All this is very helpful. Thanks.
>>
>> If the bank is just checking for a preferred UA string this should be
>> enough to get around any blocks.  However, it is possible that Google
>> has already implemented something unique in Chrome (probably related to
>> scripting) that Firefox doesn't have, but the bank is already using and
>> may not even be in other Chromium browsers. However, unique features
>> tend to be more common with entertainment-oriented sites, especially the
>> ones with DRM content.
>>
>> I've found this particular condition of demanding specific browsers and
>> versions to be especially common with financial institutions.They're
>> they ones that are most often insistent that you use only the browsers
>> (and versions) that they permit. Sometimes, objecting to older browsers
>> is a way of making sure you're running something reasonably recent,
>> enough that most security holes are patched. Also, objecting to certain
>> browsers (especially older ones) is a useful way of defending against
>> bot activity.  There are a lot of bots that also do spoofing, and
>> keeping the list of authorized browsers short is an easy way of
>> discarding a lot of bot traffic.
>>
>> However, with financial institutions, I'm convinced that a lot insist on
>> specific browser versions as a function of their customer support. If
>> they're providing support, then they want you running *exactly* the same
>> version as their support people are seeing, and if the two don't match,
>> they don't want to waste time and effort of trying to translate your
>> display to what they're seeing. Even if an objection message is worded
>> about capacities, the layout differences even between Firefox 102 ESR
>> and Firefox 115 ESR are enough that already, some are beginning to
>> demand Firefox 115 as a minimum, even if the capacities of Firefox 78 or
>> even Firefox 60 are adequate.  The UI difference between getting to
>> configs via Edit -> Preferences and Tools -> Settings is enough to cause
>> them to refuse.
>>
>> For your particular case, the same principle applies, just that the site
>> has decided that Chrome is a standard, and as a result, they're going to
>> Chrome exclusively, and where they're unwilling to invest anything
>> (whether development or user support) on anything else. And I think
>> there's nothing you are going to be able to do to change that.
>>
>> At that stage, your choices are:
>>
>> - See if you can get spoofing to work with Firefox, as described above.
>> - See if you can get another Chromium browser (e.g., Epic, Iron, etc.)
>> to work.
>> - Accept their demand for Chrome
>> - Take your business to another bank
>>
>> If you move to another bank, I wouldn't even bother with an indignant
>> message to customer service.  Just leave quietly, because they've
>> already decided that you're not worth their effort.
>>
>> Smith
>
>
>Thanks for the detailed input!
>
>First of all I was caught totally by surprise, no advance warning, no
>NOTHING. I try to log-in to pay some bills and bingo. This bank's IT

Now I do want to know which bank it is.

FWIW, I recently got a few thousand from Unclaimed Property, that I
guess my mother left me and I failed to find it like I should have, and
I wanted to open a savings account from which I would buy and sell
stocks. But instead of the 3% that banks paid on savings accounts in
the 50's through the 90's, now they pay 0.01 to 0.03%!!!! Unless you
have a high yield savings account where they pay 4.5%! -- quite a
difference -- but that one is only available in "eligible markets or at
select locations", based it seems on where the depositor lives!!!!! and
which doesn't include where I live. It sounds similar to red-lining,
except it's not about mortgages but about savings accounts.

Anyhow, I want it to be at another bank in case the one I normally use
has troubles and I can't get my money. So which one are you hinting I
should avoid?

>department has many times failed to impress me. It took 2 years of
>argument to get them to accept passwords longer than ten (and at that
>restricted) characters, today on the phone they wanted me to key-in my
>since then extended 70 character password. They ain't the sharpest

I would rather have a longer password and not have to put in capitals
and special characters. Seems to me lengthening the minimum buy even 1
or 2 characters does just as much good (and people can still use numbers
if they want to.) Especially with the cell phone where it's extra steps
to use special characters.

>knives in the drawer to put it very, very politely!
>
>If I spoof I just reinforce their lunacy. BTW I doubt very much that
>security be their objective since on that count their favorites are
>hanging by threads:
>
>https://www.forbes.com/advisor/ca/business/software/secure-browsers/
>
>..but there IS a movenment afoot to so complicate user autentication
>that only the big COMMERCIAL snoops get a slice of the targetable
>data-cake (I don't remember the name of the gimmick off hand).
>
>Interim I plan to challenge them, as publicaly as possible if necessary,
>if that don't work then I'm prepared to can the internet iterface and go
>to the physical cubicle with all my needs.
>
>

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:19:56 -0000 (UTC),
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>In <ya6dnSCMALAu5d_4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> writes:
>
>[full snip]
>
>Try sending a complaint to your State's Banking COmmission.
>
>While they likely don't have direct jurisdiction over
>this issue, there's a good chance they'll foward your
>note to their contact at your bank. And that will get
>a lot more attention than anything you send to the
>bank from your own home.

That sounds like a really good idea. Normally ideas like this, which
often can be found on NextDoor, are bad ideas, but you hit the nail on
the head.

On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 13:47:55 -0400, micky wrote:
> a high yield savings account where they pay 4.5%! -- quite a
> difference -- but that one is only available in "eligible markets or at
> select locations"

Cast your net a little wider.

https://www.discover.com/online-banking/savings-account/

They're currently offering 4.35%. I've been with that bank (checking
and savings) for almost ten years, and I'm generally happy. Savings
rate is usually at or near the top of the pack. Online banking
(including bill pay) is easy and free, and with the app you can
deposit checks by snapping pictures of front and back on your phone.

And of course there's always bankrate.com for an overview of what's
available.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 01/11/2023 15:31, bad sector wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
> the IT cubicle soon...
>
>
>
If you are not willing to name the bank, can you at least name the
country you find yourself in. My UK bank (HSBC) has no such access
requirements.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 3 Nov 2023 07:21:53 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 13:47:55 -0400, micky wrote:
>> a high yield savings account where they pay 4.5%! -- quite a
>> difference -- but that one is only available in "eligible markets or at
>> select locations"
>
>Cast your net a little wider.
>
>https://www.discover.com/online-banking/savings-account/

Wow.
>
>They're currently offering 4.35%.

Woww.

>I've been with that bank (checking
>and savings) for almost ten years, and I'm generally happy. Savings
>rate is usually at or near the top of the pack. Online banking
>(including bill pay) is easy and free, and with the app you can
>deposit checks by snapping pictures of front and back on your phone.

That I do have now, and it's the best and only part of telephone
banking. Now I never have to go to the bank. Plus after you deposit
the check, you still have it. In the past for all I knew there was a
bulldog behind the teller's counter that would grab the check from the
teller's hands and eat it. What evidence would I have that I ever had a
check!

>And of course there's always bankrate.com for an overview of what's
>available.

I'll pay more attention to that. I did look at it befoe and it had/has
10 savings banks listed, but I had only heard of two of them. Barclays
Bank only seemed appropriate if I were David Niven, Ronald Colman,
Cedric Hardwicke, Laurence Olivier, or, in a stretch, Sean Connery. I
doubt they would even let me in the door, or the portal. No, I'm not
going to submit myself to the humiliation of being turned away. (Plus
I've heard they pay the interest in farthings.)

The other I knew was Capital One. I avoid them. When I was taking a
trip out of the country, I applied for a Capital One travel card. They
made them famous, based loads of advertising on No foreign transfer
fees, so I thought they'd be good. When I got to the room I rented I
tried to go online, on the laptop and on the phone, and either way it
wanted to text me a code, but it would only use my American phone
number. Well it was dormant of course (the sim was in a pocket in my
suitcase) because I had a local phone number. I called them and they
said Tough Patooties. They agreed to email me my statement, but only
when the month was over, 27 days later. I complained again when I got
home and got an insipid answer. Unbelievable. They market their cards
especially to people who might face foreign transaction fees, thrifty
people who try to avoid them, and yet they assume everyone puts his USA
phone on roaming, despite the extra cost. So I kept the card but I'm
not using it except once every 11? months to keep it from going dormant,
and I'm not doing more business with them.

But you seem to know what you're talking about so I will look carefully
at the other 8, plus the one at the top.

Thanks a lot. I had only looked into the 5 banks that have branches
within a 1.5 miles of me, on the commercial street near where I live,
even though going to the bank is no longer a thing. You've knocked down
a roadblock for me.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 13:46:22 -0400, micky wrote:
> The other I knew was Capital One. I avoid them. When I was taking a
> trip out of the country, I applied for a Capital One travel card.

The Discover credit card has no foreign transaction fees.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product.

It sounds like you're getting a meaningful error message (from a
website?! What a rare and bizarre occourance) that suggests Firefox
is deliberately blocked, so this probably doesn't apply to you.
Then again in case you just assumed that Firefox was the issue, it
could be the same problem that I had with the Commonwealth Bank of
Australia website where the log-in would fail without explanation
due to the timezone being set wrong.

In fact in my case Linux was set to the correct timezone, and every
other program on the computer understood it fine. However in it's
typical style Firefox tries to be smart and won't simply believe
the timezone Linux tells it, instead doing things its own
mysterious and undocumented way, which wasn't working.

The fix for me was complicated, inelegant, and probably not
widely applicable. But if you've actually got the timezone set
incorrectly in your OS, then changing that should solve similar
log-in issues with websites using Javascript to dubiously query
such information. A wrong time/date setting, eg. before the time
automatically syncs via NTP after boot if your BIOS battery is
dead/dying, would presumably have similar consequences.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 11/3/23 10:58, occam wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 15:31, bad sector wrote:
>>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
>> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The girl
>> at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to hear from
>> the IT cubicle soon...
>>
> If you are not willing to name the bank, can you at least name the
> country you find yourself in. My UK bank (HSBC) has no such access
> requirements.

Canama, and this particular bank is not the sharpest blade in the
kitchen either. Let me rephrase that, I "have" seen diaperheads light a
small bonfire to make tea right in the isle of a passenger carrying
airliner (NOT a joke!); well, if we're talking banking then you can
extrapolate double outfield for a sense of magnitude!

The discussion with the help-desk BTW was quite extensive AND quite
unequivocal so I doubt if there were too many misrepresentations by the
bank, I was told in no uncertain terms that *FIREFOX* was not but that
Chrome alone WAS the browser to use. Firefox now works so I figure they
have since 'retracted' what they had stuck into a beehive.

IMO services should work with ANY popular browser using ANY preferences
settings (with degraded performance as applicable) AND whenever
something goes south the user should get explicit verbose directions of
what to change IF such a change would be acceptable to the "user".

On 11/3/23 19:14, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never use
>> any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product.
>
> It sounds like you're getting a meaningful error message (from a
> website?! What a rare and bizarre occourance) that suggests Firefox
> is deliberately blocked, so this probably doesn't apply to you.
> Then again in case you just assumed that Firefox was the issue, it
> could be the same problem that I had with the Commonwealth Bank of
> Australia website where the log-in would fail without explanation
> due to the timezone being set wrong.
>
> In fact in my case Linux was set to the correct timezone, and every
> other program on the computer understood it fine. However in it's
> typical style Firefox tries to be smart and won't simply believe
> the timezone Linux tells it, instead doing things its own
> mysterious and undocumented way, which wasn't working.
>
> The fix for me was complicated, inelegant, and probably not
> widely applicable. But if you've actually got the timezone set
> incorrectly in your OS, then changing that should solve similar
> log-in issues with websites using Javascript to dubiously query
> such information. A wrong time/date setting, eg. before the time
> automatically syncs via NTP after boot if your BIOS battery is
> dead/dying, would presumably have similar consequences.

We haven't reverted to normal time yet and I'd been logging-in without
issues all summer using daylight time. I 'think' they simply introduced
some partisan browser constraint, maybe some IT manager got paid off to
do so (seen that before!) or just to cut corners and it blew up in their
face so they backtracked. Scum like this need to be challenged, loudly,
out in the open, and every time! It doesn't matter if the given user
base is thin or not, be that Linux or Firefox or Librewolf, they cannot
afford negative PR and they KNOW it, it's up to the users to know it
ALSO :-)

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:35:17 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 13:46:22 -0400, micky wrote:
>> The other I knew was Capital One. I avoid them. When I was taking a
>> trip out of the country, I applied for a Capital One travel card.
>
>The Discover credit card has no foreign transaction fees.

Wow. A 3-advantage deal. You've sold me. (Maybe Discover is your
mother's maiden name, and you're an heir to the Discover fortune?)

But later I thought if banks don't charge that fee, they must make it up
somewhere else, maybe bad foreign currency conversion rates?