2 ms·

Not doing anything also risks fucking up something in the process: customers' money because of the lack of security. But assuming that staying within "accepted

Not doing anything also risks fucking up something in the process: customers' money because of the lack of security. But assuming that staying within "accepted standards" for secutiry indemnifies the bank, it's obvious that they shouldn't care about lost savings. In case shit hits the fan, they would be covered, and it's the problem of the customer. I'd like to be proven wrong here - that banks take responsibility for behind-the-curve security practices.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
> Not doing anything also risks fucking up something in the process: customers' money because of the lack of security. Sure, but the cost of dealing with a few customers worth of problems is substantially lower than the entire org grinding to a halt because the infrastructure doesn't work anymore.