5 ms·

Is there actual damage? At the end of day, as a customer，all I care is my money is available (not stolen) and I can access it when I need it. Why should I care

• danbolt 7y ago
  I feel the bank should be liable for stolen funds or information in the case of a security breach.
  • wheelerwj 7y ago
    They are... there's also multiple levels of insurance to cover it.
  • matz1 7y ago
    Yes, I expect the bank to protect my money. What I'm saying is how they actually do it, clear text pwd or whatever is not really my concern. Why should I ?
    • Aloha 7y ago
      This the most intelligent thing I've heard on this thread. So long as I'm not holding the bag should my account with them go haywire, I don't care. This is why shared passwords are bad.
    • toper-centage 7y ago
      Sounds like they are open to social engineering attacks, if you can get a rep to describe the password to you... Meaning I could pretend to be you and get your money.
      • matz1 7y ago
        Maybe but that is their problem. Its still the bank responsibility to deal with that.
        • godferthomy 7y ago
          Well any risk is going to be paid by the customer in the end. If they lose 0.01% of their deposits because of a vulnerability, they're gonna be charged more by their insurance and eventually charge it on their service fees to customers.
          • matz1 7y ago
            Yes, if they cause the customer actual damage, such as increased fees then it is a concern. But if there is no actual damage then what's the issue?
          • perl4ever 7y ago
            You're implicitly suggesting that the bank can either pass on the costs without people noticing, or that they have no competition, so they can set fees and interest rates to whatever they like. I don't think either is true. We do regulate banks, and this is why it's vital. You could just as well say the cost is going to be paid by the shareholders, the public (in the form of reduced taxes), or the employees.
    • jakelazaroff 7y ago
      You’re right, you’ll probably get your money back if your password gets stolen. Eventually. Might be real disruptive if you’re in the middle of buying a house. I’d probably choose my bank to minimize my chances of dealing with a giant bureaucracy for however long (and the non–zero possibility that I actually won’t get my money back). But if that’s not “damage” to you, feel free to keep doing business with them!
      • matz1 7y ago
        >Might be real disruptive if you’re in the middle of buying a house. Agree, I consider this a damage but if the bank can avoid causing me any disturbance despite of using clear text password or <insert any other questionable security practice> then why should I be concerned ?
        • afarrell 7y ago
          The same reason you might be concerned even if a doctor can deliver a baby safely despite not washing his hands in between a cadaver examination and touching your wife. Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?
          • matz1 7y ago
            Sure, If the doctor can deliver baby safely and not causing any other damage despite not washing hands then what's the issue? That's why I asked what is the actual damage. Is the money is stolen ? Is the money can't be accessed ? If the bank doesn't do me any actual damage despite the clear text password then I don't see why I should be concerned. I guess I can see that for some people, clear text password usage can cause them anxiety and lose some sleep.
            • afarrell 7y ago
              Are you genuinely saying that when you see someone putting you at risk, that you do not see a problem with it until a problem actually occurs? Imagine you worked in a building for a week and didn’t die in a fire. Would you have a problem with discovering that the writing was done by a amateur, there were piles of lint and fabric everywhere, and there was only one revolving-door exit? If yes, then you understand the problem of risk and its just a question of magnitude. If not, then you should be aware that you see the world dramatically differently than most people.
• loteck 7y ago
  Oblivious, while also utterly disregarding your own self interests. Reminds me of real life, have an upvote!
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  Would you trust a bank that protects their vault with the same kind of lock as your front door?
  • matz1 7y ago
    Yes I don't care how they do it as long as they can protect my money. Likewise, they may use top of the line, super secure lock but if they can't protect my money, I wouldn't use them.
    • diffeomorphism 7y ago
      > Yes I don't care how they do it as long as they can protect my money. That is like saying I don't care about having a bucket of water thrown on me as long as I don't get wet.
      • matz1 7y ago
        Heres another analogy, I've been using a black box sorting function from third party library, its super fast and satisfied all my requirements. Then they told me they implemented it using <insert super scetchy/controversial method>. From my perspective, as long is doing a good job and works as I expected, I don't care how its implemented.
        • diffeomorphism 7y ago
          ..., but I don't care how it is implemented as long as it is secure. I totally agree with this part. The problem is that the security of the implementation is the security of the implementation. So your sentence reads: This is implemented extremely insecurely, but I don't care how it is implemented as long as it is secure. I also don't care about water, as long as it is dry.
          • matz1 7y ago
            Yes, at the end of the day, as long as the money is there when i need it, I don't really care how you store it.