Who's Really Responsible In Online Banking Fraud?

TheRealStyro writes "According to this article a Miami businessman is suing a bank because of a fraudulent fund transfer possibly caused by the coreflood virus/trojan. He claims the bank is responsible because the bank failed to protect him from known online banking risks. It is obvious that this guy should have had an anti-virus package active, but shouldn't the bank have questioned such a large transfer to a republic of the former Soviet Union (these republics having gained the unfortunate notoriety of being dens of villainy and hackerdom)?"

Comments

Keystroke monitors?

[leonbrooks]

Are we talking keystroke monitors or something?

Under MS-Windows? Whatever gave you that idea?

Yes, yes, </sarcasm weight="heavy"> and all...

Re:There is a difference

[adeydas]

Ok let me get this straight. If I transfer 90,000 to my business partner in Soviet Russia, then the bank will call the police, brand me a terrorist and throw me in jail. Yup, sounds legal.

Re:There is a difference

[Master of Transhuman]

No, the bank won't.

The bank will just call you AFTER they call the FBI and the DEA and the NSA and the CIA and THEY will arrest you, have Bush declare you an "enemy combatant", and then send you to Gitmo (perhaps AFTER sending you to Turkey or Saudi Arabia to be tortured for a couple months - BEFORE torturing you themselves at Gitmo).

After all, according to Rush, if you have a "business partner" in Russia, you HAVE to be some kind of "commie pinko anti-patriotic terrorist Russian Mafia scumbag"...

Welcome to America! Land of the free! Home of the brave (like Jonah Goldberg at the National Review)!