3 ms·
The response to invalidate is a choice by the bank, not the person who finds the card. Also, that is a single number. It's suspicious/threatening for a non-tri
by platz 10y ago
The response to invalidate is a choice by the bank, not the person who finds the card. Also, that is a single number. It's suspicious/threatening for a non-trivial amount of cards when the presenter also makes demands.
- joshuamorton 10y agoHow is "someone has stolen your clients information and likely already sold it to nefarious actors, because otherwise it wouldn't be on the internet anywhere, so you should keep them safe by deactivating those accounts" threatening? I'd be annoyed if my bank didn't do something.
- platz 10y agoThat is a different point. You are changing the party being considered by re-framing it under yourself, a customer, instead of considering it from the point of view of the bank.
- joshuamorton 10y agoThat's ridiculous. If the bank is aware that my credentials are available online somewhere and are taking no action to protect me, they're being complicit in any harm that comes to be, because they have both the responsibility and ability to take action, and refuse to. They're being irresponsible and potentially harming their clients. So again, how is saying "You should take action to protect your customers' data" a threat? How can it be interpreted as a threat? What is threatening about it?