Reply to post:

Met police commissioner: Fraud victims should not be refunded by banks

gumbril

Pretty disappointing that someone who is clearly incompetent on a subject should wax lyrical on said subject. It's bad enough he is incompetent, but worse when he does have self awareness .

The system as is, is that if you shown to be negligent you don't get recompensed. This would be things like writing down you password or PIN, or sharing it. Of course the banks, with there usual bias to self interest manage to pin that on anything they can, or just by default apply it and wait for the complaint to whatever ombudsman looks at it, reading before it's report as 70% at RBS is not refunded?

Apart from that wrinkle, that's a reasonably fair system, if you leave a wad of cash out, and someone nicks it, that's your lookout. But what where you do take reasonable precautions, it should not. Now a question is, what's reasonable to the average folk. Make everyone sign up for two factor authentication for email, stop them using windows, training in how not to get phished? Maybe a safe banking certificate awarded after some CBT training?

But anyway doesn't matter, right now, because that 30% is the main motivation for the banks to systemically improve their security. The people who can, if they choose, employ analysts, designers and developers and the rest required to provide reasonably friendly, secure service. They are going on-line because it's cheaper for them, they make it secure, because its cheaper for them.

But no, this idiot want to make the security of THEIR SERVICE irrelevant to THEIR BOTTOM LINE. How not to motivate a bank. 101. Would HSBC cough for free pin pass cards, or sign up to VISA secure question if they didn't think it would save them money?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019