It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank Not Responsible for Letting Hackers Steal $300K From Customer

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Bank Not Responsible for Letting Hackers Steal $300K From Customer


www.wired.com

A judge in Maine has ruled that a bank that allowed hackers to steal more than $300,000 from a customer’s online account isn’t responsible for the lost money, saying the customer should have done more to protect the account credentials.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Interesting story and begs the question as to exactly what safeguards and assurances people have with money in the bank. From the article:

Judge Rich agreed that Ocean Bank could have done more to authenticate that the person initiating the transfers was indeed an authorized part.

It is apparent, in the light of hindsight, that the Bank’s security procedures in May 2009 were not optimal,” he wrote in his ruling. “The Bank would have more effectively harnessed the power of its risk-profiling system if it had conducted manual reviews in response to red flag information instead of merely causing the system to trigger challenge questions.

So the judge more or less admits that the bank should have done more but ultimately the problem lies with the customer. I feel the bank is completely at fault, its their business and service, protect it. This sets a disturbing precedent.

brill

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 7-6-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Most people don't realize almost all banks do this. They have a cap of around $10,000.00 in which anything less is stolen they don't even report it to the police.

Banks disgust me, if you all want change stop using automatic transactions and direct deposits.
I know it's easier but it will cost you in the end.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Well the judge's words eerily reminds me of the sentence "She deserved to get raped because she asks for it"



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


Judge: Oh yes! Its totally the customers fault! Why, they shouldnt have signed up with the bank in the first place! *aside* now where's my paycheck??

All joking aside, they should defiantly have the bank compensate them at least with something, the hackers got through their own security!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Most people don't realize almost all banks do this. They have a cap of around $10,000.00 in which anything less is stolen they don't even report it to the police.

Banks disgust me, if you all want change stop using automatic transactions and direct deposits.
I know it's easier but it will cost you in the end.


I'm not sure where you got your information from, let's be honest, it sounds made up.

Here in the US, each individual's account is insured for up to $250,000US (Source). So since the poor, and I'm sure tech-tard, soul was @ $300,000 he voided his coverage from the FDIC.

I'm against banks as well, they disgust me too! Could you please elaborate on how automatic transactions or direct deposits are going to "cost me in the end"?
edit on 7-6-2011 by TheyWontBelieveU because: removed the word "more"



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I think if a bank is going to offer online services, then they must take every precaution to ensure the customers are protected. That is part of the deal, like or not it is the necessary evil. Where this bank went wrong is when a virus was accessing their system, any number of things could have gone wrong there. Worse case scenario, infecting the servers and exposing other customers to risk.

Now, the people that lost the money. Shame on them. Something failed in their system and either someone needs to be fired or some serious employee computer training needs to take place, or both. To not teach the employees that those types of emails should be ignored unless otherwise instructed by a supervisor or IT staff is a failure. Another failure, the antivirus/malware did not set off alarms, why not(warrants a loss of job in this situation)? If there was no IT department, chances are that the users were running as administrators instead of being restricted by security. Too many things went wrong here and well deserving the consequences.

My ruling would be a 25/75 judgment mostly in favor of the bank with the 25.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


Makes me even more happy that I do not have an account.
Those derned hackers.
hackers, they said hackers!!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
This it totally ridiculous.

Who here wants to bet that if it would have been Obama/Clinton/Bush/a judge/a cop bank account the ruling would have been different?

Another example of one set of rules for the little people and one set of rules for the banks/politicians...

So next time robbers rob your bank, forget it, you're not getting your money back. Too bad.
edit on 7-6-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
I feel the bank is completely at fault, its their business and service, protect it. This sets a disturbing precedent.


Damn right it does. What next? Ebay? Netflix? Gasp.......paypal?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
So whats to prevent a bank from stealing this money even then. This should be guaraneed and I'm sure they have insurance for such things.

So should everyone just withdraw their money then? I think banks should seriously think it out.
edit on 7-6-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Outrageous! I wonder what Magistrate Judge Rich is doing with the kickback from Ocean Bank? Buying a new seaside escape, perhaps?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Wait a minute!! I feel really bad for the person whose money got stolen, that is totally messed up, but how is it not the bank's responsibility for a customers security?

Maybe someone should rob this judge's bank account and see what happens.
edit on 7-6-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by brill
I feel the bank is completely at fault, its their business and service, protect it. This sets a disturbing precedent.


Damn right it does. What next? Ebay? Netflix? Gasp.......paypal?
I think this is a bit more complicated than people are making it out to be. The bank can only do so much to secure their system, but you also have to keep your passwords and pin numbers secure. You should never have such sensitive banking information stored on your computer, always write it down. You also want to make sure your computer isn't infected with keyloggers or something like that. However, some online banking login forms have a way of circumventing keyloggers.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheyWontBelieveU

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Most people don't realize almost all banks do this. They have a cap of around $10,000.00 in which anything less is stolen they don't even report it to the police.

Banks disgust me, if you all want change stop using automatic transactions and direct deposits.
I know it's easier but it will cost you in the end.


I'm not sure where you got your information from, let's be honest, it sounds made up.

Here in the US, each individual's account is insured for up to $250,000US (Source). So since the poor, and I'm sure tech-tard, soul was @ $300,000 he voided his coverage from the FDIC.

I'm against banks as well, they disgust me too! Could you please elaborate on how automatic transactions or direct deposits are going to "cost me in the end"?
edit on 7-6-2011 by TheyWontBelieveU because: removed the word "more"


FDIC only covers depositors if the bank goes under. The 10K figure is pretty standard in the banking industry regarding credit card fraud and id theft. The two are completely separate from each other.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The theft stemmed from a hacker stealing the company's password and logging in as the company and initiating the transfers. The company involved should have had up to date security features on the computers used to access their bank accounts. I believe in this case that the judge was correct in his ruling.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



I think this is a bit more complicated than people are making it out to be. The bank can only do so much to secure their system, but you also have to keep your passwords and pin numbers secure. You should never have such sensitive banking information stored on your computer, always write it down. You also want to make sure your computer isn't infected with keyloggers or something like that. However, some online banking login forms have a way of circumventing keyloggers.


Yes and no. The customer was infected with the Zeus password stealing virus, perhaps he could have been more vigilant or perhaps he has a case against his security software vendor, Norton or whomever.

But his account was being siphoned off at the rate of $100,000 per day. The bank should have red flagged this activity by day 2 and notified the customer. They were negligent in not notifying the customer earlier, imo.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cdnutz44
 


You sir are incorrect.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Agreed you need to keep your privates private.
But with 300K is there not a paper trail?
Does not the fdic insure up to xxx amount of dollars?
Quickly, everyone close your bank accounts before your money gets "hacked".



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by brill

Bank Not Responsible for Letting Hackers Steal $300K From Customer


www.wired.com

A judge in Maine has ruled that a bank that allowed hackers to steal more than $300,000 from a customer’s online account isn’t responsible for the lost money, saying the customer should have done more to protect the account credentials.
(visit the link for the full news article)



You have to remember that if thieves were to break into a bank's headquarters and make off with Social Security numbers and other info. And then use that information to perpetrate Identify Theft the victim can be held accountable for any debt incurred in some cases.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join