3 ms·

Or maybe, the point of the article is the banks largely fixed it and returned the money - as the should've. Meanwhile, telcos drag their heels and do nothing to

Or maybe, the point of the article is the banks largely fixed it and returned the money - as the should've. Meanwhile, telcos drag their heels and do nothing to improve the situation (not unique to Australia). Personally, if I were in the same situation, I'd also be livid at the telco. They issued not one but two eSIMs and were useless at diagnosing the issue.

mindslight 5y ago
The banks fixing it most certainly was not the point of the article, as the mention of banks correcting his balances consists of two lines. It also implies he was not made whole fully, but does not explain why. And what really are the telcos supposed to do here? Banks are attempting to use them to provide security properties they never offered, and most likely can't offer due to their group-project technical architecture. Even if telcos completely secure the SIM reissuing process, then criminal gangs just buy someone who has access to a phone switch. Banks could very well just not implement snake oil "2FA". For example, they could ship each customer a hardware security token, and require password resets be done in person at a branch. Or they can just keep shouldering the current level of fraud as they seem perfectly content to do. The entire problem has been created by the banks, and this narrative attempting to shift blame onto telcos is counterproductive.