Agreed - but the account holder had no part in the con.
"john boyle" wrote
Why? They didn't do the conning, and weren't the one who was conned. So why should they lose out?
"john boyle" wrote
What do you mean by that? Can the account holder sue the bank for negligence?
"rob." wrote
(1) Keeping the PIN notifications (when they clearly say to destroy them) is surely negligent, because any burglar can come across them...
(2) Can you *prove* that you haven't requested a "PIN reminder" from the bank after the original notification?
I think you'll find they say destroy after opening. Plus, if a burglar comes across them, they wont do him (or her) any good without the cards.
Yes. The PIN 'reminder' will contain a new PIN. Thus if the PIN on your account is the same as the one in the envelope, you didn't.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
I don't agree that "it came from your money" follows from "if you cannot". If you can't get cash out of an ATM, because it has no cash left or is "out-of-service", does that mean that someone has stolen your money? I don't think so!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
What makes you think I said that? No, I can well imagine that you might need to pursue the bank through the courts.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
I suppose it's down to the bank. But if they automatically refuse to return the money, without even any investigation into the case, then perhaps they should expect to lose in court!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
Now that's naive. If it was the other way around - eg you took out a loan with a bank, and thought that you'd paid it all off but the bank didn't agree - your "perception" is that you don't owe the bank anything, their "perception" is that you still do - can you get away without paying it back?
No, of course not. That's because it's not simply the "perception" of the party who wants to be paid the money / keep the money -- it'll end up in court, then it is up to the *court* rather than either party.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
Exactly!
"Alex" wrote
I think you'll find that's a *maximum* liability (by law), and many companies (in their terms) reduce this to zero.
"Mike Scott" wrote
He can deny that he used / disclosed his PIN, just as vehemently...
"Mike Scott" wrote
...could also do this after PIN fraud...
"Mike Scott" wrote
So, are you saying that it is OK to *be* negligent with your signature (leaving a copy of it lying around marked on the card itself!), but even if you *aren't* negligent with a PIN then it should be assumed that you *have* been...?!!
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
You've just made a very good argument which shows that the PIN-number system is *not* "fully secure". If you really believe it, then you should expect a court to believe it too.
Why don't you believe that a court would agree with your comments above?
"Tumbleweed" wrote
Don't they *also* say "open immediately"?!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
If burgled at night (when asleep), wouldn't your card be in the house too?
Even if it isn't - the burglar "knows where you live"!!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
Have you never asked for a PIN reminder? Most banks & credit card companies I know of, will simply send another copy of the *same* number. I think I only know *one* which would change the number...
All the ones I have used that I can remember, send you a new PIN, not a reminder of the old one. though having said that, its always been in the case where I have lost a card, I dont think I ever forgot a PIN number....maybe once on an infrequently used card..
My signature is what *I* write. A copy of it is not my signature, and has no legal effect. My PIN is a number given to me by my bank to authorize transactions, and the number alone is sufficient for authorization.
So to answer your first question, yes.
Your second question is disingenuous. That is not at all what I said - in effect I said that is what *would* be assumed, not *should*.
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
There are 10,000 different permutations of 4 digits.
Some banks already only ask for 3 characters from an alphanumeric password - that's only 46,656 different permutations, or less than 'four-and-two-thirds' of the number of different PINs available.
Is the difference between 10,000 and 46,656 really that important to you?
Tumbleweed wrote: ...
Try another. I walk into a bank and deposit a large amount of cash.
A robber arrives 5 minutes after I've left, and robs the bank of all the cash on its premises.
I return later to withdraw my cash. The bank cannot give it to me because they've just been robbed.
Whose loss?
"Mike Scott" wrote
Agreed - but can you *prove* that a perfect copy of it is not "your" signature? A thief entering your PIN in a PIN-pad is offering an exact copy of your PIN - but isn't giving *your* authority, now is (s)he?
"Mike Scott" wrote
Similarly, a thief who happens to enter the "correct" PIN in a PIN-pad, is not giving *your* authority to release funds...
"Mike Scott" wrote
OK, let's replace "should" with "would" in my question: "...even if you *aren't* negligent with a PIN then why would it be assumed that you *have* been...?!!"
"Mike Scott" wrote
The bank's, obviously.
You're not trying to suggest that the bank can offset their loss against the last few customer's to have deposited money there, are you?
OK, so the customer might not be able to withdraw the funds from *that* branch, *that* day. But they could go to another branch, or wait a few days and go back to the same one.
Yes you can, the original signed slip wont have your fingerprints on it.
The banks often act as if they have, for example by stating that you were careless, gave the number to a relative, etc. In these cases, such a thief is regarded by the banks as acting with your authority.
Doh! Because then the banks dont have to give you any money!
You didnt answer my question.
At 11:41:35 on 09/08/2005, Tumbleweed delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Neither will the electronic copy produced by a signature capture machine (see the US & various delivery companies). Neither, in fact, will the paper copy which was signed with a gloved hand.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
It also won't have the thief's fingerprints either, if (s)he wore gloves for instance.
Anyway, after you or the thief hand it over, it will be handled by many other people - the cashier, whoever transfers the slips from the till to the office, etc etc. How likely is it that any fingerprint from the person who signed it, even if initially on the slip, is still there when the police/court come to look at it at least several days later?
But the banks don't have a monopoly on opinions. And in the end, it's not
*their* opinion that matters - it is that of the court."Tumbleweed" wrote
See above.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
My post from earlier this morning doesn't show on my news reader, so perhaps it doesn't show on your's either. So here it is again:-
---------------
"Tumbleweed" wrote
I don't agree that "it came from your money" follows from "if you cannot". If you can't get cash out of an ATM, because it has no cash left or is "out-of-service", does that mean that someone has stolen your money? I don't think so!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
What makes you think I said that? No, I can well imagine that you might need to pursue the bank through the courts.
"Tumbleweed" wrote
I suppose it's down to which bank. But if they automatically refuse to return the money, without even any investigation into the case, then perhaps they should expect to lose in court!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.