US Appeals Court Says Bank Liable For Losses From Poor Online Security

An anonymous reader writes with this extract: "Threatpost reports that a judge on the United States Court of Appeals this week ruled that People's United Bank's processes and systems for protecting customer accounts from fraud were not "commercially reasonable." The ruling in People's United Bank (formerly Ocean Bank of Maine) versus Patco Construction Company reverses a lower court's ruling in a case that stems from six allegedly fraudulent transactions that occurred over the period of a week in May, 2009 and drained close to $589,000 dollars from Patco's accounts. Patco alleged that People's United Bank did an inadequate job of protecting them against fraud, ignoring repeated 'high risk' warnings from the bank's fraud detection system. Now the Appeals Court appears to agree. The ruling could have broad implications in the U.S., where businesses that are the victim of account takeovers and fraudulent transactions are suing banks to recover lost funds."

It's about fucking time

[DogDude]

It's about fucking time. Banks (and yes, even credit unions) have been warning its customers that whatever happens through their online interfaces isn't their fault. That's really just absurd, when a person or company's entire financial life is available via a single password on the Net. Security, of course, isn't the sole responsibility of the banks, but it is their responsibility. Banks provide giant safes for our physical valuables, they provide insurance for theft or collapse, but online, it's "good luck, customers!"? Bullshit. It's time to hold them at least somewhat responsible for their online interfaces, as well.

Re:It's about fucking time

[drinkypoo]

It's well past time. My bank is retarded. Mandatory security questions that people can find out answers to by research, you can lie to them but then you have to remember your lies. Also, your initial online access PIN is the last four of your SSN, and it persists from the time you go to the bank to get it activated to the first login, which could be a very short time (it was for me) or a very long time but either way is terrible.

Re:Now lawyers to design security protocols?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I honestly don't see how this is a problem. A bank's fundamental commitment is to be a safe place to stuff your money. They pay a pretty fair chunk of money to physical security experts to make sure nobody can walk in and take the money in their charge. They should take their online security just as seriously and if they don't they should be held liable.

when I opened my first bank account

[way2trivial]

back in the 80's I was asked for my mothers maiden name-

I asked why they needed it- and they said for a password in case I ever called
- i immediately thought -- my brother knows the answer to that- and he's the only person I can see attempting it

My mothers maiden name has been snotrag ever since (not snotrag, but something equally offcolor) and it's always been the same answer

the one my brother does not know.

Re:Now lawyers to design security protocols?

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy - the choice isn't usually between 'lawyer security' and 'real security'. The bank is often choosing between 'lawyer security' and 'no security'.