5 ms·

If you give your card and your PIN to somebody and that somebody steals from you, how can this be the bank's fault?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
growse 3y ago
Presumably because the bank thinks that card and pin possession is sufficient to authorise all transactions regardless of personal circumstance. As this case shows, this isn't always true.
avianlyric 3y ago
Banks have an obligation to ensure that people can access and use their funds. This isn’t email, being unable to spend your own money has very serious consequences for people. It’s their duty to provide security measures that both ensure transactions are authorised correctly, and allow people reasonable access to their money. If you’re house bound, entirely dependent on a trusted third party help for your day-to-day living, and your bank only provides a debit card and PIN facility to authorise your transactions, then what choice do you have but to share those credentials with a trusted third party so they can buy food for you? The bank chooses the authentication mechanism, their customers don’t get a choice. If that mechanism doesn’t work as intended when faced with common and entirely reasonable living situations, that’s the banks failure, not the customers failure.
- danmaz74 3y ago
  It's easy to pick on banks, but I really don't see what should the bank do here.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    This is basically, it's bank's fault for having chosen their cheapest mechanism and not have changed anything. In the end, the bank could have provided a digital one off pin with a fixed amount fir the debit card. From a tech perspective this seems easy to implement and could have solved the casr, the bank just does not provide it.
jpsouth 3y ago
It feels akin to giving someone a blank cheque you’ve signed. Crazy.
calciphus 3y ago
In most places a large number of aberrant transactions that don't match the historic spending patterns of an account would be enough to trip a security review, and a call to the account holder, temporary freeze, etc are low impact to false positives and highly effective at stopping fraud. So yes, because we afford massive protections and rights to banks in exchange for the necessary but largely low-risk activity (holding cash then returning it in exchange for a fee) - laws holding them responsible for failing to prevent theft do exist.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Presumably because the bank thinks that card and pin possession is sufficient to authorise all transactions regardless of personal circumstance. As this case shows, this isn't always true.

avianlyric 3y ago

Banks have an obligation to ensure that people can access and use their funds. This isn’t email, being unable to spend your own money has very serious consequences for people. It’s their duty to provide security measures that both ensure transactions are authorised correctly, and allow people reasonable access to their money. If you’re house bound, entirely dependent on a trusted third party help for your day-to-day living, and your bank only provides a debit card and PIN facility to authorise your transactions, then what choice do you have but to share those credentials with a trusted third party so they can buy food for you? The bank chooses the authentication mechanism, their customers don’t get a choice. If that mechanism doesn’t work as intended when faced with common and entirely reasonable living situations, that’s the banks failure, not the customers failure.

danmaz74 3y ago
It's easy to pick on banks, but I really don't see what should the bank do here.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  This is basically, it's bank's fault for having chosen their cheapest mechanism and not have changed anything. In the end, the bank could have provided a digital one off pin with a fixed amount fir the debit card. From a tech perspective this seems easy to implement and could have solved the casr, the bank just does not provide it.

jpsouth 3y ago

It feels akin to giving someone a blank cheque you’ve signed. Crazy.

calciphus 3y ago

In most places a large number of aberrant transactions that don't match the historic spending patterns of an account would be enough to trip a security review, and a call to the account holder, temporary freeze, etc are low impact to false positives and highly effective at stopping fraud. So yes, because we afford massive protections and rights to banks in exchange for the necessary but largely low-risk activity (holding cash then returning it in exchange for a fee) - laws holding them responsible for failing to prevent theft do exist.