Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who's Really Responsible In Online Banking Fraud?

Posted by timothy on from the firefox-did-it dept.

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)?"

3 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by Aeiri · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What's with half of the story being bolded? I know the editors are lazy, but that lazy? I'm almost certain now that an XSS attack could be pulled off by submitting a story to Slashdot.

  2. morons by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I hope this guy loses his case and gets fined for it. If you can't even be bothered to take responsibility for your own negligience/incompetence, you can't expect anyone else to.

    In fact, sometimes I think there should be a LICENSE required to go online. There are just too many id10ts out there.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
  3. Also by Lu+Xun · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Shouldn't Slashdot have questioned a ffp that uses italics and bold for its editorial?

    --
    That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!