A good amount of money has been stolen from my bank account bypassing the double factor authentication.

astyle said:
To be fair, I agree with that line of thinking somewhat. Thing is... you can't exactly control what others are doing. You can only make decisions for yourself. If you don't want a dog to bite, you stay away from that dog. Then the dog will bite someone else, but not you.
Click to expand...

Are you sure ? And is it really important for you if the dog A will not bite you,but dog B will do it ? You can't control everything,right ?
 
eternal_noob said:
Yeah, but don't blame the dog if it bites. It's natural behavior.

Likewise, it's natural behavior for some people to steal.

Humans are animals, after all.
Click to expand...

Humans are more than animals....humans are bio-psycho-social beings. We started as animals,but then we evolved as something more complicated and potentially more versatile. And we should not be confused. A malfunctioning human being is different from an animal. They are not comparable, even if in some ways they are similar.
 
1000004905.jpg
 
astyle said:
blackbird9 : I'd suggest letting this go, no point beating a dead horse (this may be a US expression, rather than British)... In US, CVV is usually required every time you use a new card. Sometimes an online mertchant keeps your card info on file so that you can do 1-click ordering, like on Amazon - until the card expires. After that, the customer needs to enter the CVV again. That is so common that phishing web sites take advantage of that very absent-mindedness to harvest CVVs off unsuspecting victims. Convenience is nice, but it's no reason to drop your guard and stop paying attention.
Click to expand...
Over here retail sites usually ask you to enter the CVV every time you make a purchase, apart from places like amazon that hold the card details in a user profile. If I order some food from a supermarket online, for example, I have to enter the CVV every time. Anyway as you say it's flogging a dead horse, yes we say that over here too. 😁
 
ZioMario said:
Your way of thinking seems implies that all or most of the responsibility for what happens falls on one person. Instead I believe that responsibility should always / often be shared among multiple persons. In my case, if the CVV number had been requested (such as some other security strategies that the bank could apply), I would still have my money now. This is a fact. I have my responsibilities,bank has its own,thief has his,and so on. There's no need to cough about this, as we say where I live. We could instead discuss about a rational distribution of them. And you know what the clerk suggested me to do when I went to talk to him ? Instead of admitting that the banking system could be more secure... he suggested I take out identity theft insurance. That's how they think they're protecting their customers. By making them pay for having a better security. First they make the systems vulnerable, then when someone happens to be the victim of theft, they offer them the insurance policy. Not before. And don't tell me that I should be the only one responsible for what happens to me, because what happens to me, it's ALSO a consequence of some other people's choices.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with either of you. In my view the responsibility lies squarely with the banks to make the system safe. It's their system, and they are using it to benefit their business bottom line, not to benefit you, the customer. Offloading the risk onto the customers is an abrogation of their responsibility, imho. Still, I'm sure this one will run and run. Just my two pennies worth! 😁
 
blackbird9 said:
I don't agree with either of you. In my view the responsibility lies squarely with the banks to make the system safe. It's their system, and they are using it to benefit their business bottom line, not to benefit you, the customer. Offloading the risk onto the customers is an abrogation of their responsibility, imho. Still, I'm sure this one will run and run. Just my two pennies worth! 😁
Click to expand...

sure,but I did my mistakes. With different strategies about how to protect my money I would have saved them.
 
The system should have been designed to protect the customer in the event of the customer making mistakes. They know full well that customers are going to make mistakes. It's their responsibility, imho. You shouldn't need a PhD in cyber security in order to safely buy something from an online shop; or if you do, then the system is not fit for purpose.
 
blackbird9 said:
The system should have been designed to protect the customer in the event of the customer making mistakes. They know full well that customers are going to make mistakes. It's their responsibility, imho. You shouldn't need a PhD in cyber security in order to safely buy something from an online shop; or if you do, then the system is not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I expect the banks to do their job properly, otherwise, I will simply decide to not have an account with them. I don't control what the banks do, I control what I do. I take a look at what won't get me in trouble. A bank can't force me to put my money into their safe. They can offer me attractive terms and benefits to do that, but they can't force me. And if I realize I made a mistake, and Bank A is worse than Bank B in terms of security and customer service - that's my mistake, not Bank A's. Bank A has policies and procedures of their own, I don't control those. Yeah, it's on them to have their ducks in a row before I become a customer. But having their ducks in a row - it's still my job to be informed on whether that's the case, it's not my job to walk in and hold them to that. certainly not until I'm a customer who depends on the bank having their ducks in a row.

Yeah, I don't need a PhD in cyber security to buy something safely from an online shop. Yeah, it's responsibility of the shop to demonstrate that it can safely sell stuff online. But even so, there are some minimal standards for people's attention. If you routinely miss red flags (like not using standards-compliant components that are up to date), you'll be restricted to only buying stuff from safe sources. It's on you to train your mind to pay attention to red flags and signs of trouble, and to know how to stay safe - that's what being an adult is. A kid cannot be expected to know signs of danger. You don't need to be an expert on fire to know to stay away from a hot stove. Yeah, a hot stove will give you a hot meal - if you know how to use it safely and not get burned.
 
astyle said:
Yeah, I expect the banks to do their job properly, otherwise, I will simply decide to not have an account with them. I don't control what the banks do, I control what I do. I take a look at what won't get me in trouble. A bank can't force me to put my money into their safe. They can offer me attractive terms and benefits to do that, but they can't force me. And if I realize I made a mistake, and Bank A is worse than Bank B in terms of security and customer service - that's my mistake, not Bank A's. Bank A has policies and procedures of their own, I don't control those. Yeah, it's on them to have their ducks in a row before I become a customer. But having their ducks in a row - it's still my job to be informed on whether that's the case, it's not my job to walk in and hold them to that. certainly not until I'm a customer who depends on the bank having their ducks in a row.

Yeah, I don't need a PhD in cyber security to buy something safely from an online shop. Yeah, it's responsibility of the shop to demonstrate that it can safely sell stuff online. But even so, there are some minimal standards for people's attention. If you routinely miss red flags (like not using standards-compliant components that are up to date), you'll be restricted to only buying stuff from safe sources. It's on you to train your mind to pay attention to red flags and signs of trouble, and to know how to stay safe - that's what being an adult is. A kid cannot be expected to know signs of danger. You don't need to be an expert on fire to know to stay away from a hot stove. Yeah, a hot stove will give you a hot meal - if you know how to use it safely and not get burned.
Click to expand...

In any case, the discussion shifted from who is responsible for what happens—one person or several—to who controls what. These are two sides of the same coin, but I wanted to emphasize that, in my opinion, responsibility always lies to a segment of the society (not to all, obviously), never to a single individual. This is precisely because human beings are obliged to be a social beings. Paul Watzlawick said that human being can't help but communicate,so,if this is true,it is also true that human being can't help but to be social. For this reason, I believe that even the laws that regulate human life should not overemphasize the crimes committed by individuals, but should also take into account greater penalties for those who live around those who commit them,both for what they do, and for what they don't do, and for what they could or could not have done to avoid it....
 
ZioMario said:
In any case, the discussion shifted from who is responsible for what happens—one person or several—to who controls what. These are two sides of the same coin, but I wanted to emphasize that, in my opinion, responsibility always lies to a segment of the society (not to all, obviously), never to a single individual. This is precisely because human beings is obliged to be a social beings. Paul Watzlawick said that human being can't help but communicate,so,if this is true,it is also true that human being can't help but to be social. For this reason, I believe that even the laws that regulate human life should not overemphasize the crimes committed by individuals, but should also take into account greater penalties for those who live around those who commit them.
Click to expand...


Well, you're only responsible for what you are in control of. The decisions you make for yourself. Yeah, you don't make decisions in a vacuum, you gotta consider the possibilities (including how others will react), figure out what's likely, what has benefits, what has pitfalls... what is worth going after, and what you're better off staying away from. Refining that decision-making is what makes a human.
 
astyle said:
Well, you're only responsible for what you are in control of. The decisions you make for yourself. Yeah, you don't make decisions in a vacuum, you gotta consider the possibilities (including how others will react), figure out what's likely, what has benefits, what has pitfalls... what is worth going after, and what you're better off staying away from. Refining that decision-making is what makes a human.
Click to expand...

Because everyone is nourished by the ideas, examples, and life models offered, especially by those they love and trust. Decisions made or not made are a more or less pronounced consequence of the way of thinking in which each person is immersed. We are also cultural beings, the product of the culture we live in. And of the education we have received. A bit like the society of the Borg in Star Trek. Everyone is connected to others by a network. Once isolated from the network, a human being heads toward mental imbalance and death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top