4 ms·

If the solicitors were acting on behalf of the bank, then they are bound by the contract with the bank. If the bank is a half-decent bank, they have a third-par

If the solicitors were acting on behalf of the bank, then they are bound by the contract with the bank. If the bank is a half-decent bank, they have a third-party security risk assessment & risk management team, that audits them regularly. You are thus covered/protected, because if they (solicitors get hack, leak data, etc) the bank will (most likely) spot this, and move to protect you.

jtbayly 6y ago
This sounds like wishful thinking at every step.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  Whoah plenty downvoting.. I assume that everyone is fully aware of Banks' Third-Party Security protocols/procedures and have good/working knowledge that they don't operate? Anyway, not wishful thinking. Actual/reality. Feel free to ask your banks about their TPSM. Good opportunity to see some info: I use BrightTalk (not affiliated) to collect CPEs for my certifications. They have plenty of webinars on Third Party Security: https://www.brighttalk.com/search/?q=%2Bthird+%2Bparty+%2Bsecurity&start=0&size=25&type=webcast&duration=0..&rank=-entrytime https://www.brighttalk.com/search/?q=%2Bthird+%2Bparty+%2Bse...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Eh, I am in both camps at the same time. I know what you are saying is true in theory, but in practice ability to make money efficiently trumps everything else. Even at bank bank you see people cutting corners for variety of reasons ( and when you see it you have to react ). I can't even imagine how bad it is in unregulated/less regulated industry.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Setting aside everything else, on what basis would they moved to protect you as opposed to protecting themselves? And even even if they are forced to by bad publicity or something, what can they possibly do for you anyway if there’s a leak, other than offer you a useless year of identity theft “protection”? In other words, I still maintain this is wishful thinking.
loloquwowndueo 6y ago
Yeah because banks are notoriously good at protecting consumers. “1 year of free credit monitoring” is just to cover their asses but won’t save yours in case of a major leak.

jtbayly 6y ago

This sounds like wishful thinking at every step.

HenryBemis 6y ago
Whoah plenty downvoting.. I assume that everyone is fully aware of Banks' Third-Party Security protocols/procedures and have good/working knowledge that they don't operate? Anyway, not wishful thinking. Actual/reality. Feel free to ask your banks about their TPSM. Good opportunity to see some info: I use BrightTalk (not affiliated) to collect CPEs for my certifications. They have plenty of webinars on Third Party Security: https://www.brighttalk.com/search/?q=%2Bthird+%2Bparty+%2Bsecurity&start=0&size=25&type=webcast&duration=0..&rank=-entrytime https://www.brighttalk.com/search/?q=%2Bthird+%2Bparty+%2Bse...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Eh, I am in both camps at the same time. I know what you are saying is true in theory, but in practice ability to make money efficiently trumps everything else. Even at bank bank you see people cutting corners for variety of reasons ( and when you see it you have to react ). I can't even imagine how bad it is in unregulated/less regulated industry.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Setting aside everything else, on what basis would they moved to protect you as opposed to protecting themselves? And even even if they are forced to by bad publicity or something, what can they possibly do for you anyway if there’s a leak, other than offer you a useless year of identity theft “protection”? In other words, I still maintain this is wishful thinking.

loloquwowndueo 6y ago

Yeah because banks are notoriously good at protecting consumers. “1 year of free credit monitoring” is just to cover their asses but won’t save yours in case of a major leak.