OpRobinHood more likely to stiff punters than bankers

Obvious answer

Was obvious.

Any fool could have seen this stupid idea would only do more harm to the general public than the banks.

Screws over consumers and retailers, results in increased fees?

So, dodgy as it is, not much worse than the banks themselves?

Hardly suprising

A bank is a repository for money. Most of what they have actually belongs to other people.

Where did the fucktards of Anonymous think this "extra" money was going to come from? Thin air? As it is, with the opportunity to levy chargeback fees and hike rates presented here, the banks'll probably end up turning a profit on the whole deal.

The only banks that *can* actually create money out of nothing (i.e. print it) are the Central Banks. Now the ECB could probably do with a right kicking about now[1], but it'd take rather more than a few s'kiddies and some bent credit card details to rip it off.

[1] Ideally one with "Ignore the germans and do your bloody job, shitwits" attached to it.

Someone else using Robin Hood's name in vain!

Not just that the banks will reclaim the money ... it can significantly inconvenience totally unconnected people as it appears that MasterCard and Visa are obtaining lists of credit card numbers that may have been accessed in the recent high profile hacks and marking them as potentially compromised with the result that transactions get declined, this get flagged to the card issuing bank who then block the cards and issue new numbers - no direct monetary cost but as someone who's had Christmas shopping put on hold for a week until my new CC turns up (as I assume MasterCard see my old one as "at risk" as I bought some stuff from Steam with it) it can be very inconvenient.

it's easy

quit making excuses for why you "can't" do it. Remove the power from the banks by not giving them power. Do not use them. WE enable the banks. WE take on debt that gives them control.

But you want your "interest", you want so-called "security". you really want your little retirement contribution to magically be worth twice what you put in. You want ATM's and credit cards and check payments and mortgages so you can buy houses and cars and bling. So you say you "can't avoid using banks in modern society".

Bollocks. "Modern Society" is created by and for banks. It works off of personal feelings of greed, entitlement, lust and most of the "7 deadly sins". So defending your use of banks is simply refusing to give up those conveniences. You're trading your freedom for that.

But that isn't as "fun" or cool or whatever so hacktivists want their simple quick action they can brag about instead of the boring slog of self sacrifice. They want Hollywood action films instead of the reality of trench warfare. Which simply doesn't work as proven time and time again.

In other words, don't whinge about the banks and the System when YOU are the one feeding them.

@BoldMan: "If you want to affect the bank bosses directly, target THEM directly, not screw over the bank's customers."

That doesn't work either. If someone injures the CEO of a bank, then the bank will have to provide more security for said CEO. The money to hire extra security guards is ultimately paid for by, you guessed it, the customers of the bank.

The only way to hurt a company, bank or otherwise, is to take their profits away by sending their customer(s) to a competitor. How long would *any* business last if their customers simply refused to buy the business' product(s) ?

The Anony-tards won't do anything like that because that would involve, you know, actual effort on their part. They seem to find it easier to throw a rock through someone's window, regardless of whether doing so achieves their intended aim, and then go back to their self-congratulatory masturbating about how much of a "difference" they've made.

Grime doesn't pay

These script-kiddies need a damn good wash and then to bed with no supper.

I still support good old vandalism

If Anon wanted to mess with the banks, IMO, it would be better to actually vandalize the banks offices themselves. How much money would be lost if a bank had to close its branch office for a day or two because someone vandalized it and the ATM machines? What if say 5 or so branches were vandalized?

In regards to the costs being passed onto the customer, well, it seems as if that's what happens regardless of who committed the fraud, even when it's the banks themselves.

Maybe what needs to happen is to make using credit cards and banks so cost prohibitive and a hassle, that people just decide that its easier to go with out.