4 ms·

Broadly speaking: because they don't have to get it right. Banks are generally protected from fraud not by up-front security, but by auditing. If someone mis-a

Broadly speaking: because they don't have to get it right. Banks are generally protected from fraud not by up-front security, but by auditing. If someone mis-applies funds, they have a chain of transactions they can back out. And, if someone does it maliciously, they have a disproportionate support of the force of law to discourage such behavior. Contrast most software companies, where theft of data is not a reversible issue, so they are heavily incentivized to make it technically infeasible.

bluGill 1y ago
While not wrong it will big a big hasstle for whoever is the fraud victum while things are reversed. You may even lose other things in your life because you are unable to pay bills you technically have the money for but cannot access the money.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  This is all true and, most notably, not the bank's immediate concern. The financial sector has sheltered itself / been sheltered from the immediate consequences of fraud perpetrated upon it regarding its customers. The customers catch most of the consequences in terms of opportunity costs and some of the bookkeeping labor. (... in the large, of course, too much fraud runs the bank out of customers and then the bank suffers. But that has to be a lot of fraud, and that's where the governmental big stick that the banks and other financial operators get to wield by proxy come back into play. Try to steal $100 via credit card fraud and you probably get away with it [once], with the cost being borne by a credit card company having to write off couch-cushion money and an individual consumer being heinously inconvenienced in having to rotate all their auto-deduction numbers. Try to steal $1,000,000? The FBI has some questions, friend, if you'd be willing to come with these nice men down to the branch office).

4 ms·

Broadly speaking: because they don't have to get it right. Banks are generally protected from fraud not by up-front security, but by auditing. If someone mis-a

by shadowgovt 1y ago

bluGill 1y ago
While not wrong it will big a big hasstle for whoever is the fraud victum while things are reversed. You may even lose other things in your life because you are unable to pay bills you technically have the money for but cannot access the money.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  This is all true and, most notably, not the bank's immediate concern. The financial sector has sheltered itself / been sheltered from the immediate consequences of fraud perpetrated upon it regarding its customers. The customers catch most of the consequences in terms of opportunity costs and some of the bookkeeping labor. (... in the large, of course, too much fraud runs the bank out of customers and then the bank suffers. But that has to be a lot of fraud, and that's where the governmental big stick that the banks and other financial operators get to wield by proxy come back into play. Try to steal $100 via credit card fraud and you probably get away with it [once], with the cost being borne by a credit card company having to write off couch-cushion money and an individual consumer being heinously inconvenienced in having to rotate all their auto-deduction numbers. Try to steal $1,000,000? The FBI has some questions, friend, if you'd be willing to come with these nice men down to the branch office).