Comment by sschueller
5 hours ago
Yes it does. But my device, my choice. If I put my cash the under my mattress instead of a safe that is my dumb decision.
5 hours ago
Yes it does. But my device, my choice. If I put my cash the under my mattress instead of a safe that is my dumb decision.
> But my device, my choice
Given there is a choice, and given HSBC is on the hook if you get hacked in most jurisdictions, it seems fair to chalk this one up as a stupid move by HSBC that's nevertheless within their rights.
HSBC is on the hook if I get hacked? I can't think of companies having to pay up because their customers got hacked because of their doing. Let alone if it wasn't directly their doing. Solarwinds was for example never forced to pay a dime.
> HSBC is on the hook if I get hacked? I can't think of companies having to pay up because their customers got hacked because of their doing. Let alone if it wasn't directly their doing. Solarwinds was for example never forced to pay a dime.
Even if they are not on the hook, there is still the hassle/overhead of dealing with the fraud (e.g., opening an investigation), and/or the bad press when a customer gets hacked and you refuse to refund money per the terms of service:
* https://old.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1pwh...
In the UK, HSBC is definitely on the hook: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy94vz4zd7zo
This is both good and bad. It's good because fraud is rife and the banks had little incentive to do anything about it. It took them absolutely years of foot-dragging to add a system that verifies the name of the destination account holder when you transfer money between accounts. It's bad because the reason fraud is rampant is that the police do nothing about it. It's the crime you can get away with. The government saw the easy way out: rather than organizing and funding the police sufficiently, let the banks deal with it.
In the UK, yes, banks are on the hook if _you_ get scammed. It seems the bar for them to prove that you were at fault is too high so in reality the banks just make the decision on what you can buy for you.
A good few years ago now (when it was possible to get something in good condition for such a measly sum) I was buying a car from a private individual. The transaction was in cash. You can't take £1500 out from an ATM, unless you spread it over multiple days, and probably doing that would also get you flagged. So I went to my bank (also HSBC coincidentally) and they required me to tell them what I was buying with that money.
Now I could have lied, of course. But they could also have just told me that I can't take cash out if they didn't believe me.
If you look around, there are news stories of people being denied access to their own money because the bank decided it was too risky.
You can get kicked out of a bank for being too risky. And there's not even any legal requirement in the UK for a bank to offer you an account. Or well, there _is_ but like with all UK regulations which protect the individual, it's full of caveats. You are entitled to a Basic Bank Account (BBA) if you can't get any other account except if you can't verify your identity/residency, or you have a history of financial misbehaviour, or if you are too closely associated with terrorism. So I guess homeless people or pro-palestine protesters aren't allowed bank accounts.