
Safe Deposit Boxes Aren't Safe - rafaelc
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/business/safe-deposit-box-theft.html
======
tacostakohashi
As soon as there were multiple boxes with the same number in a single vault,
this course of events was pretty much inevitable.

If the bank is not competent enough to assign unique numbers to each box in
the first place, of course they aren't going to be competent enough to only
ever empty the correct one of several boxes numbered #105, or to handle to
contents safely.

It's difficult to comprehend how the bank thought having non-unique numbers
would be workable. If non-unique deposit box numbers seems ok, why not non-
unique bank account numbers? Or why even go up to #105, just number them all
#1?

I'm always fascinated when people find a way to undermine a simple, workable
system and end up with something worse than no system, or the state of affairs
before the system existed.

~~~
amichal
I learned the hard way several years ago that a bank I used to have will
happily cash two checks with the same check number the same amount and the the
same recipient (on the same day even).

Apparently check numbers are for my convenience not for any sort of auditing
on their part.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Likewise signatures.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4344941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4344941)

------
BlackFly
Isn't this just covered by ordinary tort law? There is a duty of care, there
is a lapse of said duty. The issue seems to be that people are putting
valuable items into it and then signing a contract that says that the limit of
liability is limited to much less than the value. If that isn't negotiable
with the bank then the bank is just not willing to accept the risk. Then
either you can find an insurer who is willing to accept the risk or you can
find a different bank who is willing to accept the risk or you can build a
safe yourself since all the risk is on you anyways.

There doesn't need to be special laws for everything.

~~~
beatgammit
If we are to add a law here, I think it may make sense to require contracts to
be easy to understand and as short as is reasonable. I think it's pretty
reasonable for someone to skim over fine print especially for something that
seems obvious.

Something like a safe deposit box should be a single page document with
something like this:

\- cost is $X/month and prices are revaluated every Y months and can increase
by a maximum of $Z/month \- may access the box X times/month without any
additional fees \- bank's liability is max $X or Y months of rent, whichever
is higher/lower \- if rent is not paid, X happens, and after Y months of non-
payment, Z happens \- policy/fee for lost keys

I haven't actually opened one, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contract was
10 pages long and the maximum liability was somewhere in the middle in fairly
small print.

~~~
grepgeek
I like the way Creative Commons licenses do it. First there is a simple
bullet-point-wise summary for layman like this:
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) . Then there is the
entire legal code for lawyers: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/4.0/legalcode](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode) .

I think all contracts should be written like this. If any clause of the legal
code contradicts the summary for layman, then the summary for layman should
take precedence during its interpretation in the court.

This practice is not unusual. Books often start with a preface or foreword.
Very dense technical or research papers start with an abstract and
introduction. But for some reason contracts do not follow this practice.

~~~
mikeash
If the summary takes precedence, then what purpose does the legal code serve?

~~~
bzbz
The details.

------
belorn
Here in Sweden it has been very clear for the last 20 years that banks
consider anything non-digital to be legacy and aspects of banking that should
be closed down to reduce costs. They know where the profits are and where it
scales.

~~~
wesammikhail
As far as I know, only a handful of banks in Stockholm still have safe deposit
boxes. I even tried to start a safety deposit box business as a private non-
bank related thing. I can´t even begin to describe to you what type of
regulatory hurdles and red-tape I was faced with when trying to get that up
and running. It´s pretty clear at this point that the entire system here is
trying its hardest to reject everything of a non-digitalized and traceable
nature.

For the longest time I used to believe that it is because Sweden is first to
embrace new "technology". I have now come to understand now that it is
something completely different and it will come back to bite this country in
the ass in the not too distant future. I would be surprised if our economy
even survives another decade without some serious restructuring.

~~~
marvin
> I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different
> and it will come back to bite this country in the ass in the not too distant
> future.

Do you have some additional thoughts on what this "something completely
different" is? I'm a Norwegian and follow the political developments in Sweden
with great interest, and sometimes a degree of morbid fascination.

I get the impression that, among other things, there is a push towards greater
surveillance and tracking of everybody's spending behaviors, coupled with a
political correctness craze that seems to divert the attention from more
central issues. Would be curious if you had any thoughts on the powers that
drive these developments, or whether there is anything related that's not too
obvious.

~~~
nonbel
> Do you have some additional thoughts on what this "something completely
> different" is?

Negative interest rates:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/01/31/the-u...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/01/31/the-
unintended-consequences-of-central-bank-policies-part-2-of-2/#715ce8e86153)

This has really just begun, things are going to become more and more
nonsensical like people getting paid interest to take out a mortgage and
paying the bank interest on their deposits. Both are already happening to a
limited extent in Denmark:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-s...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-
stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages)

------
kinleyd
"Wells Fargo had apparently tried to evict another customer for not keeping up
with payments, and bank employees had mistakenly removed his box instead."

Wow. The incompetence is truly amazing.

------
methou
The only things that sit in my safe deposit are password protected GPG paper
keys, revocation certificates, and, OTP recovery sheets.

There's a local bank near my workplace provides such a service, and I use them
as a last resort of crypto id recovery. The downside is that they have a
fingerprint system, but they do have a human agent to verify your identity.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Those are some pretty important "only things". If you're concerned enough to
have thought about and acted on this, why would you entrust these things to an
inscrutable third-party?

~~~
methou
These are the 3rd parties that are held accountable by law and regulations.

------
cascom
On the one hand, obviously the bank was incompetent. But shame on the guy in
the article for not having his items insured. This is a pretty standard rider
in most home owner’s insurance policies (or an easy separate policy).
Typically the policy is incredibly cheap if the items are stored in a safe
deposit box, and if you take them out you call the insurance company and tell
them that, the items remain insured but at a higher daily rate, and you call
the insurance company and tell them when the items go back in the box, and the
rate goes back to the low rate.

~~~
jdlshore
The article doesn't say the items weren't insured. Shame on _you_ for victim-
blaming.

It did talk about the sentimental value of a lifetime of collecting one-of-a-
kind timepieces. That can't be replaced by an insurance payout.

------
fencepost
It seems that one of the most important things to start with is a page right
at the top of the box with "IF THIS BOX HAD TO BE OPENED" followed by notes
about payment for the box, multiple contact methods including through several
third parties (friends, family, employers), etc. with mailing addresses, phone
numbers, email for each. Heck, include several pre-addressed letters or
envelopes with (in the USA) "Forever" stamps already on them.

Work from a basis of "mistakes happen, how can I minimize the impact?"

------
7952
Whilst the security lapses are infuriating, I think this is really a domain
for independent insurance cover.

~~~
Thorrez
I would want to buy that insurance from the bank. If I buy the insurance from
somewhere else, then the bank doesn't really have a financial incentive to
keep my stuff safe.

~~~
H8crilA
Meaning the insurance premium will be higher? I mean if X keeps it, Y insures
it, then X loses it, Y still has to pay up, so you're covered. The only
difference between X=Y or X!=Y could be in the premium that Y commands.

~~~
Thorrez
Yeah, I would expect the premium to be higher if the insurer knows there's not
much incentive for the bank to protect the item.

Also I consider a loss and insurance payout to be worse than no loss and no
payout. Because it's a hassle to do the paperwork and rebuy items. And there
might be sentimental items that a payout doesn't fully replace. So it's best
to have a system that reduces the chance of a loss.

------
Youden
I live in Switzerland and even here you're usually not covered, despite the
reputation for banking. You can buy separate insurance however and some non-
bank safe deposit boxes come with insurance.

------
Simulacra
I think this goes to show that banks really don’t care about customers, and
they don’t care if something goes wrong. They only care when they get caught
and they have to pay for it.

~~~
segmondy
s/banks/most businesses/

------
julienchastang
The banking industry is rife with malfeasance and incompetence, Wells Fargo
especially [1]. This is yet another example.

[1] [https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/07/30/a-timeline-of-
wells-...](https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/07/30/a-timeline-of-wells-fargos-
scandals)

------
benj111
Matt Levine covered this a few days ago.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/don-t-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/don-
t-put-your-valuables-in-the-bank)

~~~
jraby3
He actually repeatedly sites and quotes The NY Times article.

~~~
benj111
Yes? I find Matt Levine normally has an interesting and insightful way of
looking at things, so I put it here.

~~~
jccalhoun
The phrase "a few days ago" made me initially think that Levine's article came
first. I think the commenter was pointing out that Levine's article came after
the posted one.

------
mitchtbaum
Don't have access to a decommissioned mine? Nor, a deep underground military
base?

Well, you're still in luck.

You can search how to bury your stuff, ie:

[http://www.howtoburyyourstuff.com/](http://www.howtoburyyourstuff.com/)

Really.

~~~
nullc
After looking at that site I expect that if I could find the author's full
name and googled it, the results would be full of posts at metal detecting
forums.

The whole site appears to be really bad advice-- instructing you to bury large
metal containers of your valuable stuff on land that isn't yours. It is the
stuff of detectorists fantasies.

~~~
mitchtbaum
>~ land that is/isn't yours

You have that the other way around...

> ..if I could find.. ..would be full.. ..fantasies.

Would you want to bet on how these guesses will pan out and see how this
approach looks after sincere efforts to analyze it (for wealth preservation or
other uses)?

> that site

There'rrr others worth looking at; probably others that contradict a good
portion of it, or just have another point of view.

------
Bucephalus355
What have people been using for Yubikeys as an alternative? Installing safes
onsite and self monitoring?

~~~
TomK32
From the article is sounds like most of those cases are banks drilling open
the boxes and putting the contents into storage. A better and stricter
inventory system with strict and punitive regulation is what is needed, not
some technical gadget.

~~~
Latty
I think the parent post was asking where someone would securely store a
hardware device like a yubikey that, for example, contains the only copy of a
root key—as opposed to using such a hardware device as part of a security
system.

~~~
tialaramex
In a safe? Buy a half-decent one.

You should align your storage choice to your contingency plan. For a lost root
your contingency plan should involve distrusting and replacing the hierarchy
underneath the root. To the extent that you wish to avoid executing the plan,
buy a better safe so you are less likely to need the plan.

It is OK for your contingency plan to include "Go bankrupt and cease to exist"
if you are any sort of corporate entity.

~~~
Latty
I'm a bit confused by why you responded to me with this.

"Installing safes onsite and self monitoring" was literally the example given
by the person asking for other suggestions.

~~~
tialaramex
Sorry, probably the tangle of threads caused me to disconnect that from your
response, as you say my response is useless in light of this.

------
hannob
I don't know how people who have jewelry worth millions usually act.

But honestly... it strikes me as a bit odd that you'd put objects worth many
millions in a box that costs a $246 fee per year and then expect high safety
standards.

~~~
close04
They're not putting millions in a $246 box, they're putting millions in a
_bank_. The same way you might put all your savings in a bank account that not
only costs you nothing, the bank actually _pays you_ for it (via interest). So
if tomorrow your life savings disappear would the "what did you expect from a
service you were paid to receive?" question seem reasonable?

Lobby and interest groups are strong enough that laws that actually look after
the customer rather than the corporation are few and far between.

~~~
hannob
I don't own millions, but I guess if I did then no matter if I'd put money
worth millions on the bank or jewelry worth millions I'd have someone with a
legal degree reading the ToS for me to tell me if it's an appropriate offer
for that amount of money.

~~~
close04
Yes and no... The only valid answer anyone with a law degree and experience
could ever give you when dealing with a bank is "you're on your own with
anything that could conceivably happen even if it's not in the document you
sign".

Otherwise you will never assume the conditions can change without prior notice
(none that they can prove anyway, signature on receipt is too cumbersome for
the bank it seems), that the risk you're taking comes _from the bank_ , that
the bank can drill the safe and take everything inside, or that the bank can
take your stuff "by mistake", no notice, and get to keep it. It's common
sense. The courts disagree. They see all this as perfectly legal because it
is. That's what lobbies buy you.

> Banks typically argue - and courts have in many cases agreed - that
> _customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms_ , even if they leased
> their box years or even decades earlier.

> And the scant protections offered by state laws are often simply ignored

If you want to see how ridiculous it sounds when applied to another industry
with slightly shallower pockets imagine this: after paying all your premiums
for insurance the insurance company changes the conditions to say "covers 0%
of the damage" then steals your car and keeps it.

------
mnm1
What? Banks stealing from their customers? Why never. But seriously, who is
surprised? That's what banks do. They steal. They steal small amounts in wrong
fees. They steal huge amounts in bailouts. They steal medium amounts in
between. And of course there is no regulation so there's no recourse. How
surprising that an unregulated industry steals and fucks over its customers to
the largest extent possible. Not. It's the American way. For people that have
no morals and don't care about fucking over and hurting others, making money
is easy especially in the US. I sometimes wish I fell into that category. I'd
make millions as do all these entities and people with no conscience. The
corporation is the perfect vehicle for such actions. But unlike the people
running these banks, the people regulating them, and the people advocating
against regulation, I have a conscience that doesn't allow me to get rich in
this way. Expecting banks to behave in such a way is madness, however.

~~~
anticensor
North American banks are regulated too, just in a very different (and more
archaic way) from Eurasian system.

