

Court Allows Woman to Sue Bank for Lax Security After $26,000 Stolen by Hackers - yan
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/citizens-financial-sued/

======
ggchappell
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
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.

