6 ms·

If the bank teller is tricked or their bank servers hacked, the bank should be liable. If the account holder is tricked, the account holder should be liable. I

If the bank teller is tricked or their bank servers hacked, the bank should be liable. If the account holder is tricked, the account holder should be liable. If a merchant is tricked, the merchant's agreement with their payment processor determines whom is at fault.

geofft 10y ago
That's one possible view. Another one is that, as a matter of contract, I am letting the bank profit from the growth of my money in exchange for protecting me from fraud, no matter who was defrauded. Essentially it's insurance. If someone else crashes into me, and it's their fault, their insurance pays. That's why they're insured.
- sigzero 10y ago
  Except that contract doesn't exists. You are liable in the situation outlined.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  If that's indeed the contract, but it appears this article is decrying the fact that it's not part of the contract to protect you from your misuse of private information. I don't think it's reasonable to assume such a burden of responsibility if not explicitly agreed upon.
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    On the other hand, it's basically impossible to negotiate fair terms with a bank because it's almost impossible to survive without a bank account, doing so carries extraordinary costs, and bank customers have basically zero leverage. You can argue that the bank's unilateral terms don't support a moral claim, but it doesn't invalidate the morality of the claim, only the legality.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  That exists today, it's called a credit card.
lostlogin 10y ago
My banking fees are enough that they could go some distance should I fall for a scam. I can't remember the last time I called them, I don't use ATMs and I never go in. All the stupidly high fees give me is a basic app and safety - which isn't as great as it could be according to this.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Customer in the story wired all the funds in her account, more than half of the median average UK salary, to the scammer; she wired £17500 ($22948 USD). Do you really pay that much in bank fees to warrant covering you making a mistake like that?
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    No I don't. I'd prefer to be handed actual notes of money for my wages rather than deal with the bank and pay them for the pleasure. But that isn't an option.
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Where do you live? If you are in the US then there is plenty of fee free banks, mostly online banks. You seem to be paying more in fees than necessary.
      - eyelidlessness 10y ago
        Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I looked the trend is toward: - Traditional banks are jacking up fees - For people who already don't need it (good credit, savings) those fees can be waived - Credit unions can reject you for credit scores (obvs) Where do the online banks fall on that spectrum? If you need good credit or stable cash you can't spend, it leaves a whole lot of people out in the cold. Never mind that a lot of the same class of people can't always reliably use the tubes to do their transactions (phone primary Internet device, often shut off, often changing numbers).

geofft 10y ago

That's one possible view. Another one is that, as a matter of contract, I am letting the bank profit from the growth of my money in exchange for protecting me from fraud, no matter who was defrauded. Essentially it's insurance. If someone else crashes into me, and it's their fault, their insurance pays. That's why they're insured.

sigzero 10y ago
Except that contract doesn't exists. You are liable in the situation outlined.
x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
If that's indeed the contract, but it appears this article is decrying the fact that it's not part of the contract to protect you from your misuse of private information. I don't think it's reasonable to assume such a burden of responsibility if not explicitly agreed upon.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  On the other hand, it's basically impossible to negotiate fair terms with a bank because it's almost impossible to survive without a bank account, doing so carries extraordinary costs, and bank customers have basically zero leverage. You can argue that the bank's unilateral terms don't support a moral claim, but it doesn't invalidate the morality of the claim, only the legality.
Spooky23 10y ago
That exists today, it's called a credit card.

lostlogin 10y ago

My banking fees are enough that they could go some distance should I fall for a scam. I can't remember the last time I called them, I don't use ATMs and I never go in. All the stupidly high fees give me is a basic app and safety - which isn't as great as it could be according to this.

nxzero 10y ago
Customer in the story wired all the funds in her account, more than half of the median average UK salary, to the scammer; she wired £17500 ($22948 USD). Do you really pay that much in bank fees to warrant covering you making a mistake like that?
- lostlogin 10y ago
  No I don't. I'd prefer to be handed actual notes of money for my wages rather than deal with the bank and pay them for the pleasure. But that isn't an option.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Where do you live? If you are in the US then there is plenty of fee free banks, mostly online banks. You seem to be paying more in fees than necessary.
    - eyelidlessness 10y ago
      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I looked the trend is toward: - Traditional banks are jacking up fees - For people who already don't need it (good credit, savings) those fees can be waived - Credit unions can reject you for credit scores (obvs) Where do the online banks fall on that spectrum? If you need good credit or stable cash you can't spend, it leaves a whole lot of people out in the cold. Never mind that a lot of the same class of people can't always reliably use the tubes to do their transactions (phone primary Internet device, often shut off, often changing numbers).