5 ms·

Court Allows Woman to Sue Bank for Lax Security After $26,000 Stolen by Hackers

6 points by yan 17y ago

ggchappell 17y ago
Well, good for the court, but I have a rather different take on this. As far as I can tell, based on the information given, the "hackers" (no, I don't like this use of the word, either) didn't steal money from the woman. The bank did. Consider: Do I care how much money my bank gives to someone who is using my identity? Not much, really. Of course, I'm generally in favor of my bank guarding its resources prudently, but, really, $26,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the assets most banks have. If my bank wants to give $26,000 to some random person who happens along, well then, I think they're stupid, but it's not a huge problem with me. However, for the bank to claim that my account balance has been reduced by $26,000 as a result of their stupidity, well, that is a problem. Giving out money to random people is dumb, but covering their stupidity by taking money from me -- that is theft. The conceptual error occurs when you say that the "hackers" withdrew money from my account. No, only I am authorized to do that. These people obtained money from the bank by means of fraud, but the fact that my identity info was used, is not relevant to my account balance. Another way to think about it is that the bank does not have a box somewhere with my name on it. Instead, a savings account (for example) is a loan from me to the bank, on which the bank pays me interest. The account balance is the amount the bank owes me. So, the bank got stupid and gave some money to some nasty person. Does that affect how much they owe me? Nope. Is the fact that the bank thought they were partially repaying my loan, relevant to how much they owe me? Nope. A final thought: suppose the tables were turned. I owe the bank money (I have a mortgage). Suppose someone came to my door and said, "Hi! I'm from your bank, and, for your convenience, I'll take your mortgage payment." And I'm stupid, so I stuff a wad of bills into this person's hand. Now suppose that this person is not really from the bank. Does their action affect my mortgage balance? Of course not. Further, in this situation, would any reasonable person claim that my visitor stole from the bank? Of course, not, they stole from me. If I refuse to pay back my mortgage now, then I am the one ripping off the bank, not my visitor. I conclude that, again, the problem this woman has, is not that some "hacker" stole her money; it is that the bank stole her money. UPDATE: Started reading the article again. The more I read, the more ridiculous the thinking appears. Look at the first sentence: "An Illinois district court has allowed a couple to sue their bank on the novel grounds that it may have failed to sufficiently secure their account, ...." Dumb. I think they should sue the bank for taking their money and wrecking their credit without cause. Why should the bank's security have anything to do with them?
onreact-com 17y ago
I'd rather sue the banks for the lack of security when it comes to losing billions by a so called "financial crunch". 26k is peanuts. That's always the case though, shoplifters get prison sentences or they get downright killed like at Walmart but the big fish are untouchable.

6 points by yan 17y ago

Well, good for the court, but I have a rather different take on this. As far as I can tell, based on the information given, the "hackers" (no, I don't like this use of the word, either) didn't steal money from the woman. The bank did. Consider: Do I care how much money my bank gives to someone who is using my identity? Not much, really. Of course, I'm generally in favor of my bank guarding its resources prudently, but, really, $26,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the assets most banks have. If my bank wants to give $26,000 to some random person who happens along, well then, I think they're stupid, but it's not a huge problem with me. However, for the bank to claim that my account balance has been reduced by $26,000 as a result of their stupidity, well, that is a problem. Giving out money to random people is dumb, but covering their stupidity by taking money from me -- that is theft. The conceptual error occurs when you say that the "hackers" withdrew money from my account. No, only I am authorized to do that. These people obtained money from the bank by means of fraud, but the fact that my identity info was used, is not relevant to my account balance. Another way to think about it is that the bank does not have a box somewhere with my name on it. Instead, a savings account (for example) is a loan from me to the bank, on which the bank pays me interest. The account balance is the amount the bank owes me. So, the bank got stupid and gave some money to some nasty person. Does that affect how much they owe me? Nope. Is the fact that the bank thought they were partially repaying my loan, relevant to how much they owe me? Nope. A final thought: suppose the tables were turned. I owe the bank money (I have a mortgage). Suppose someone came to my door and said, "Hi! I'm from your bank, and, for your convenience, I'll take your mortgage payment." And I'm stupid, so I stuff a wad of bills into this person's hand. Now suppose that this person is not really from the bank. Does their action affect my mortgage balance? Of course not. Further, in this situation, would any reasonable person claim that my visitor stole from the bank? Of course, not, they stole from me. If I refuse to pay back my mortgage now, then I am the one ripping off the bank, not my visitor. I conclude that, again, the problem this woman has, is not that some "hacker" stole her money; it is that the bank stole her money. UPDATE: Started reading the article again. The more I read, the more ridiculous the thinking appears. Look at the first sentence: "An Illinois district court has allowed a couple to sue their bank on the novel grounds that it may have failed to sufficiently secure their account, ...." Dumb. I think they should sue the bank for taking their money and wrecking their credit without cause. Why should the bank's security have anything to do with them?

onreact-com 17y ago

I'd rather sue the banks for the lack of security when it comes to losing billions by a so called "financial crunch". 26k is peanuts. That's always the case though, shoplifters get prison sentences or they get downright killed like at Walmart but the big fish are untouchable.