'Electronic Banking vs. Digital Banking'

Disputing TD bank's new Digital Agreement

---

I decided to share my recent correspondence with TD bank over the proposed ‘Digital Banking Agreement.’ I see this as an opportunity, even if I am not successful in this dispute, to bring much needed information to a great many more people.

My objective is to have the ‘Digital Banking Agreement’ separated from existing access card and online banking services, and I make a case for this in the two letters below. It already seems (as a result of resistance to this proposed agreement) that the ability to use access cards will remain, even if the ‘Digital Agreement’ is not agreed to. Since the ‘electronic’ access card has now been separated from ‘Digital’ services, I propose that traditional online services can too. It is important, I believe, to draw a line between the banking services we have known for decades, and the kind of financial ‘metaverse' that banks seem eager to usher in. A functional alternative must remain.

I plan to add more here in the near future, for now though, I am pleased to share the above mentioned letters:

Letter to the TD Senior Customer Complaints Office

11:44 am. April 27 2023

To whom it may concern.

I am writing in response to your proposed 'Digital Banking Agreement' 804544 (0423). I've been directed here after calling in to speak with staff at a TD bank call centre. That conversation is on file of course. . .

The above mentioned document states that original agreements still stand. I am pleased to read this, as I am completely happy with the original (and still standing) 'electronic service agreement.' As the text reads at the top of document 804544 (0423):

'This Agreement does not replace any of the terms and conditions in the TD Agreements.'

And again, on page 12:

10.2 Does this Agreement replace your other TD Agreements, and the other Terms?

'No. This Agreement is in addition to TD Agreements and any Other Terms. This Agreement doesn’t change or replace them.'

I must underscore: 'This Agreement doesn’t change or replace them.'

My April 24th email is on file of course, as you will have seen. As I'm forced to pursue this further, I must explain my position in more detail. Someone at TD, I have to believe, can understand what I am saying.

This proposed agreement seems to be an attempt to label all things previously considered electronic (and still referred to as 'electronic') as digital. Many people, myself included, see this as a step toward the introduction of a platform to support Digital ID and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). We have no interest in these new digital functions of course, and many of us refuse to use our phones for banking (as in the UK, where a third of the population resists using their mobile devices for this purpose).

Importantly, as a practical matter, I am certain you understand that CBDC will not mix with existing bank credit, as these are two different iterations of money. They must be accounted for separately; thus, CBDC will be held in digital wallets, either at the bank, or on people's devices, or both. It will not be mixed with 'money' in bank accounts, just as cryptocurrency cannot be deposited into a regular bank account (except by some elaborate accounting practice that banks may establish internally, to give this impression). Existing bank accounts then, must be kept separate from the digital system being designed to accommodate a future CBDC.

CBDC is not simply a 'neutral agent,' as economists describe money, and it is not a simple unit of account, as accountants regard money; it is a truly digital expression of 'central bank liability' (M0, that is to say). Unlike regular Central Bank Reserves, which we might consider 'wholesale' CBDC, 'retail' CBDC (for the public) will be assigned special attributes and conditions for use, as Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), has made frighteningly clear. This programmable 'retail' CBDC would give the BIS, and all banks in fact,"absolute Control" over the people:

Money was long considered 'public equity,' 'commonwealth' - a public utility, in fact - but this move to digital speeds up the transformation of money into something else entirely; as Mr. Carstens explains, a tool for absolute control. This is the 'reset' of our economy people at the World Economic Forum advocated for. You will have read about the Canadian Bankers Association's proposed 'Federated Digital ID' of course.

As Harvard professor, Christine Desan writes:

'Like other modes of governance, money serves both public and private purposes. It can be designed in ways that are democratic or dictatorial. . .' (my italics)

This move therefore, which opens the door to a new kind of 'dictatorial' money, is unacceptable to people in free and democratic countries such as Canada. For this reason, these new digital functions must remain separate from existing banking services.

CBDC, as I mentioned, is a liability of the central bank; whereas bank credit is a liability of the people commercial banks issue loans to. For years, commercial banks have given the impression that cash and coin (also liabilities of the central bank) are the same as bank credit, and have profited handsomely by this (some would say) 'sleight of hand.' This is because bank credit balances in demand accounts can be converted, at almost any time (at the counter or through a bank machine), into real money, bearing the words 'Bank of Canada.' As a result, people assume money is all the same. TD bank now appears to be preparing for a CBDC roll out, and is giving people the impression this too is the same as bank credit; in so far as the bank maintains that 'digital' and 'electronic' are the same. They are not.

Digital banking services, as I have explained, will be very different to the electronic services we have used for decades (and still use). Simply changing the word electronic to digital does not make them the same. There are a great many people who do not want to be forced into the digital regime that banks are developing, including 'Open Banking,' and it appears TD (before any of the others) is taking advantage of the fact that most people know almost nothing about money. Some of us though are wondering if the fact that TD is leading the way on this has anything to do with the bank's recent Canada Post partnership? Since a nationwide 'narrow bank' (as the Post Office once was) may yet be required to handle CBDC (as early Canadian CBDC model proposals outline).

Regardless, it is disingenuous and unethical, to coerce people into accepting this Digital Banking Agreement in order to maintain access to their money (through bank machines and Easy Web). This kind of coercion is not only unethical; it may very well be illegal. On this issue, fully informed consent is essential.

Even if people's access card and Easy Web 'privileges' are taken away, their accounts remain, and still function (we are told). TD, therefore, is choosing to make life difficult for those who do not comply, and a lot of people have a sense that there is something fishy about this. Aside from the fact that such an important transition must be 'opt in' (not agreed to by default, even if the customer hasn't seen the bank's threatening notifications), this 'railroading' of faithful,long-term customers, into an agreement most wouldn't want, is shameful.

It seems TD understands that much of this proposed agreement is not 'valid or enforceable,' as stated in section 10.5. Therefore, a growing number of people, myself included, would suggest that TD 'not go ahead with these changes' (just as CIBC recently announced to their clients over an unpopular issue regarding GICs). A recent survey shows that as many as one in four people are not comfortable with digital banking, and I suspect TD bank would not want to lose a quarter of its depositors at this time, especially with the massive hedge fund shorting of TD stock that is occurring right now. Forcing this Digital Banking Agreement on people could be a very costly mistake.

I look forward to your comments and, more importantly, I look forward to your walking back on this, so that those of us who do not want to use your digital banking applications on phones and other mobile devices will still be allowed to continue using access cards and Easy Web banking, as we have for decades. As you make clear at the beginning of your newly proposed Digital Banking Agreement: existing terms and conditions have not been changed or replaced.

Again, I refer you to my earlier complaint [_________________], which escalated this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

David Ward

Follow up letter, dated May 10th:

I thank you for your latest reply and I look forward to hearing from someone shortly. I picked up a physical copy of the brochure you attached on one of my visits to the local TD branch, but I thank you for sending this all the same.

Further to my previous comments, I would like to share the following, which underscores my point: that online banking alone is not 'digital banking.'

Mobile banking (and mobile banking in conjunction with existing online banking services) constitutes the new 'Digital Banking' regime:

As you will see, in the following Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/what-is-digital-banking/

Here’s a visual equation that sums up (literally) digital banking:

Online Banking + Mobile Banking = Digital Banking

Online banking has been a thing since 1994, long before people used their phones for such things, online banking therefore, remains firmly in the established realm of electronic banking (separate from 'Digital Banking'). The original 'electronic services agreement,' then (as you maintain) still stands, irrespective of any 'digital agreement' entered into by those who wished to use their phone to access existing banking services. These folk will have agreed to other 'terms and conditions' of course; they will have 'opted in' when they downloaded their apps. It is good that you provide the option to delete these mobile applications, and many have, as you know; but here too, the original 'electronic services agreement' should still stand, so that they are not debanked later this month.

I hope this additional information is helpful, in order that you can clarify things, and prevent the loss of even more of your long term customers.

Thank you for your time, and I await your reply. . .