Slashdot Mirror
Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera
mwandaw writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do not 'all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.' After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
"Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends. Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone, however, as any tech-literate person will tell you, those programs usually are outdated, slow and bloated.
Its quite silly how they don't understand it. In their mind IE = Microsoft = stable. In everyone elses mind IE = Microsoft = Slow/Bloated/Insecure. In their mind Chrome = New = Unstable, in everyone elses mind Chrome = New = Fast.
Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You can tell how outdated their thinking is by their inclusion of Web TV. How long has it been since that was even sold?
not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site
- but they'll still be supporting IE6. Where the hell are they getting their security information from? I can see still supporting it purely because of the sheer numbers of nutbars still using it, but to mention security when talking about any other browser?
At least they give you the option to continue anyways. Many sites just lock you out with no questions asked.
Maybe you're too young to have noticed this, but you typically only get to choose a bank (checking account, credit card, mortgage, car loan) for the first couple years. Then there's a merger or your loan gets flipped, and you start getting statements from some other company with different terms and policies (not that you understood the first one's). Then a couple years down the road, there's another merger or your loan gets flipped again.
So, it could be that no-one opts to bank at Chase, but... Chase (Citi, BofA, PNC etc) happens.
A few years ago, before Firefox and Safari had any market share I used to find from time to time websites requiring me to use IE. Since it was not possible at the time (IE had not been updated for Apple in a few years) you know what happened? I did not use their service and I did not miss it, I just used a competitor who allowed me to use my browser. Didn't matter if it was a back of a brokerage account, or a Japanese tee shirt shop (whatever). Now I never encounter that kind of message anymore. Is this a positive example of free market? I am not sure, but it might be!
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I can understand the "popularity" argument, though it certainly does tend to coddle poor design practices, the fewer browsers they have to check for correct rendering on the cheaper their web development will be.
I find the "security" one much harder to understand(unless, as is quite likely, it is just being used cynically to make a purely cost-based decision sound more urgent). From a security perspective, things like IE6 and FF2.0 are seriously retro; but supported, which makes it seem quite unlikely that they are making the "security" decision based on the presence/absence of some specific feature(e.g. specific SSL/TLS ciphers, "anti-phishing filters", XSS countermeasures, etc.). Further, the "Safari 3.0 or higher (Mac Only)" thing seems downright inscrutable from a security perspective, and not much clearer from a web-design perspective. Is Safari version X on Windows really that drastically different? And is Chrome all that different, in terms of the rendering features that you would need to present a bunch of numbers, some fine print about fees, and clip-art of smiling families?
Eight words: "Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera .
'...not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.'
Yeah, if you've made a site and it doesn't look in both Chrome and Opera, there must be a problem with those browsers. I'm sure they paid a lot of money to get their site developed, so there can't be anything wrong with that.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Nothing in the linked page says that they're going to lock out "unsupported" browsers.
If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser.
Essentially they're saying that the site may not perform per specification in browsers that they do not test with because they're only used by less than 5% of their users. This is nothing other than a "we didn't test, so don't expect it to work" disclaimer. Nobody is getting locked out and nobody is discriminated against. The site's developers are simply cutting some corners to save costs. Business as usual.
Y'all are posting in a troll thread.
The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE, and it's stable. The first thing I noticed was that Facebook didn't work well in IE. I got sick of Facebook, and stopped using Chrome for a while. Then I noticed that a couple sites I use a lot both work reliably in Chrome. I had been blaming those sites for having bad scripts. Nope. It's IE.
Now, perhaps this is because I went through my IE settings and turned off anything that I thought might make me vulnerable. I don't run AV, so I tend to go through all the security tweaks for IE.
Maybe, just maybe, if I set IE back to defaults it would work OK with the aforementioned sites. I won't do that. So many MS problems are due to insecure default settings, almost as much as the software itself.
So. There's Chrome, it works on these sites, so I use it. Many people sitting behind PCs won't try alternative browsers. They'll just think the site is slow or unreliable.
I don't know what MS is doing with IE. Maybe they're too distracted with smartphones and Bing. Maybe Google's brain power, revenue, and "momentum" is just crushing MS in the browser space. Whatever it is, the failure of IE is now painfully obvious, not just from a security standpoint; but useability. To reiterate, I suspect the scripting engine, since the sites where I've observed problems tend seem to be fairly script intensive. Anything that processes AJAX requests is twice as fast, or faster in Chrome. IE sometimes "forgets" drop-down settings or refuses to take input. Chrome just works.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
As I once wrote to my bank: "I'll switch banks before I switch browsers".
There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else. I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...
More like a battle that they can't possibly win. There's no way for a bank website to prevent stupid users of any operating system from installing keyloggers.
Some people do change banks, just not enough. I was very unhappy with BofA's funds availability policy in TX after moving from Cal. I found a bank in TX that had an acceptable policy and I switched. OTOH a friend of mine complains incessantly about wells fargo, but everytime I suggest switching, he says it is too much trouble, which I think is your point:) I keep trying to get him to switch but to no avail.
You can easily change your user-agent in Opera and I would assume Chrome would be the same.
But you shouldn't, because then they'll never support Opera or Chrome "because none of their customers use it".
Firefox didn't start getting support from big websites because of people changing its user-agent to IE.
In case of Ben I prefer to keep to the KISS principle and use the Occam's Razor. Just a few days ago the guy said he doesn't understand why gold is rallying. Really, he doesn't, that's what he said.
Maybe he is lying, but I think he is just useless, he is the perfect case that supports Peter Principle, he is stuck within his level of incompetence.
You can't handle the truth.
Quite. Instead you should do the exact opposite!
If you're using Firefox download the extension and pretend you're using Chrome/Opera on their site.
That'll fuck with them.
Thanks for letting me know how security is viewed at Chase. I mean if you are using the most insecure browser in the market today that is even seen by Microsoft as being inadequate. And Chase can't seem to find the time and money to upgrade, who knows what other corners they are willing to take to save a buck security-wise. I mean that's pathetic that a FINANCIAL institution is still using that completely insecure browser behind their doors.
If I was a bank I would just completely avoid recommending any particular browser. Once you do that you are complicit / partially liable when a user is compromised by following your advice. As a case in point, as far as I know, FireFox 2.0 is no longer receiving security updates and there are known vulnerabilities in the last released version. Chase recommending this browser could easily be taken as an argument in a court case if a user is compromised while using their web site.
It would be far more sensible for the bank to impose no limitations and simply recommend that all users acquire a secure and standards compliant browser for using their web site.
I really don't know what my APR is. I pay my bill in full each month.
That is why now that my oldest is prepping for college I have been giving him the money talks and told him to stay away from the big banks. I have found the small community banks and credit unions to give much superior service without gouging you on fees. With my little community bank I can even use my debit card online with no worries, because they cover all but $20 in the case of fraud and the card costs me a grand total of $1 a month.
You really can't beat the personal service at those little banks either. I had to pick up some off lease office PCs for an insurance company job and I found that one of the suppliers doubled dipped and charged me twice. I walked into the bank and told a teller what my problem was, she had me in front of the girl in charge of debit cards in under two minutes. The girl in charge of debit handed me her personal card and said "It'll be back in your account by the end of the day" and then called me an hour later to say it was all taken care of.
So I'd say you have to be nuts to go with the big banks. Not only is the community and credit unions less risky and less likely to gamble, but they value their customers and go that extra mile to keep your business. When the credit crisis first hit and the big banks were looking to mommy government to cover them, my little community bank was telling folks to come on in, because they hadn't gambled and had plenty of money for business and home loans.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it
So you were providing them basically no money whatsoever to invest. Do you know how a bank works? They take in deposits and then invest the money deposited. In return they provide you security and safe access to your money and perhaps a bit of interest. The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements. Your $50 costs them money. Not a lot and probably not $2.00 but more than zero. Why would the bank want to do business with a customer that costs them money each month? They institute the fee specifically to drive away unprofitable customers.
You'd think things like this would be so destructive to your customer base that they'd have to think twice about it, yet they just do it without batting an eyelash
I'm sure you're a nice guy but think about it for a minute. You were a small fry customer with little capital who cost more to serve than the bank could make off your investments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what happened. You did the right thing by going to a credit union that wanted your business. But expecting a large bank to care greatly about an unprofitable small customer is naive.
Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings.
"Funny"? That's not funny, that's dumb. You basically gave the bank $50 and got nothing in return.
Nowhere in the notice does it say that you MUST use one of the supported browsers. It says, "If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser." I'd be willing to bet that the site will work fine in Chrome. Why don't they list Chrome? Because they don't test with Chrome ("Supported browsers are browsers that we consistently use and test with our site"). Why don't they test with Chrome? Because every additional browser that must be tested with adds time to development and QA. You could argue that Chrome has enough users for them to invest the time to test with it, but if they are testing with Safari, they are probably fine with Chrome anyway. It's a simple matter of resources and I, frankly, don't see much wrong with it. I'm speaking both as a web developer and a Chase customer.
Seeing as mwandaw wants to feed the outrage machine by spinning and taking things out of context, let's take a look at the actual facts.
From the Chase FAQ:
Now, lets look at the spun summary:
Because many people do not upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Which is why they mention older browsers being a security risk. Oh, and as the summary says, usage of IE6 is plummeting, but as support is existing and use is still high, it is best to support it.
Who the fuck cares what Google thinks? Chrome is not the do-all, end-all of the internet. Chrome is not even that popular.
Would you want to bet that Chase checked their server logs to figure out what their customers use?
And the effects not using a supported browser?
And, about those older browsers?
Ok, now that the truth is out there, are you going to stop being an asshole, mwandaw?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Some people do change banks, just not enough.
If you do change banks because they don't support your favorite browser, make sure you keep it a secret if you want to keep your friends. That said, I won't trust any bank that tells me IE6 is a secure browser, and Opera is not.
As for the real problem: a browser is not a banking platform, never was, and never will be good enough. How many potential security problems are there in a typical browser that would be completely eliminated with a simple native application?
That frightens me due to the implications it has for poor internal security at Chase. They might as well paint a bullseye on themselves for spear phishing attacks...
Doesn't Chase have an IT budget for upgrades, or did they get tied to some proprietary Microsoft platform that's holding them back?
Now I've only ever had a Chase credit card and a Citi credit card. The Chase card got eaten by a paper shredder many years ago. My personal bank has been PNC for a long time. I know they are a larger bank (maybe not as large as Chase or Citi) but they have always treated me well and have given good offers for services that appeal to the middle and lower economic classes.
I do agree, though, that many banks would fall all over themselves for the 500k+ accounts. And they probably offer protections and/or other services that those account holders don't mind paying a $20/month service charge. Having never earned that much, I've never looked into what those benefits might be.
Not really. Chrome is pushed down the throats of users at a rate that is only comparable to MS IE. Google has the money to create misleading advertisements, they own the online ad services so can spam all the web pages they want. It is really just a click of an ad link to install Chrome, no more than the average piece of malware.
Awhile back, when Firefox was still sleek and sexy, and the darling of the nerd set, it was about the same. Every nerd who had a site had some "Get Firefox" banner on their site, meaning the internet was full of Firefox banners (more than Chrome, I haven't actually seen a "Get Chrome" banner yet, much less a "Compile Chromium" banner). Your malware comparison would have been pretty accurate with Firefox. Especially since Firefox was actively trying to knock down the big, "trusted" browser of the time. Firefox was a small, scary, upstart.
Chrome is now in roughly the same place, sans the geeky "grassroots" bit*.
I'm not surprised though, since it took some time for everyone to support the scary, new, "malware" that was Firefox. It will take a bit of time to support Chrome. Though it is odd, since they support Safari, and hence Webkit, so the barrier to supporting Chrome is largely artificial (how much of a difference, work-wise, is there in supporting two implementations of the same engine?).
As for Opera, I'm more shocked that they mentioned not supporting it, than I am than they wouldn't. Opera is almost invisible. They should support it, but it doesn't shock me that they don't.
*Though I have been doing to Firefox what I have done to IE a couple years ago, replacing it with Chrome on my parents and friends computers.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Surely switching is easy. You turn up and say "Give me all of my money, I'm closing my account." and they give you all of your money. You then go to a competing bank with a couple of forms of ID and say "I'd like to open an account, here's all of my money."
Oh, you mean people are too lazy to switch? Well, that's different...
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You should really think about this for a bit longer than it took you to write that diatribe. Ben Bernanke continues the inflationary policy of printing money, both long and short term money - cash and bonds, and he says he does not understand why commodities are valued higher and higher in terms of dollars?
If he does not understand it, it means he completely does not belong in his position. You don't understand any of it, so why are you commenting?
You can't handle the truth.
The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements.
That's not the customer's fault.
True but irrelevant. A bank is a business and it exists to make a profit. If you expect them to conduct business in a way that is unprofitable to them you are being naive.
You speak as though the savings account was this guys only account with the bank. It wasn't.
Doesn't necessarily matter. THAT account was unprofitable for the bank. Furthermore he wasn't using it. If he had large accounts elsewhere he might have been in their private banking service but it sounds like he wasn't and so the bank didn't much care if he left.
You also need to consider future potential. Maybe this guy was small-fry, but tomorrow he might want a big loan to start a business or buy a house.
When that happens I'm sure the bank will be happy to consider working with him. In the meantime the bank has no evidence that this will ever be the case.
Because they nickel-and-dimed him on the savings account he closed his checking account with an undisclosed amount in it.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is for a large bank to have policies that are inconsistent? It's unbelievably complicated and expensive. If a large bank is going to change the rules for you they'll need some sort of reason to believe you are worth the hassle and extra cost.
No doubt he'll show this bank the same amount of loyalty that they've shown him.
No doubt. Look, I've worked very closely with bankers for years. It is a relationship business. After all, the banker is selling an undifferentiated product - one money market fund is pretty much the same as any other money market fund. However folks with a $50 savings account don't normally have a personal relationship with an actual banker. They simply don't. As a result the bank has to institute policies that make sense for the sort of business the bank desires. A large bank is not going to spend a lot of effort trying to woo the business of an account holder with a tiny, unprofitable, inactive account. Expecting otherwise is naive.
If my bank tried to take $2 a month from me on my $100 savings account they'd lose all my business - including the mortgage that earns them tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Your mortgage doesn't earn them "tens of thousands of dollars a year" unless you have an absolutely gigantic mortgage. The interest they receive is 5-7% annually. For a typical mortgage of $200K (close to the average in the US) that works out to $7000-15000 in revenue which steadily decreases over time. You also are not considering the cost side of the equation. Chances are good those future interest payments have been securitized and sold already anyway so the bank may already be effectively out of your mortgage anyway.
Sure, most people are too lazy to change but it still generates a lot of ill will and for what? $50 a year in fees?
Yep. Banks are too important to the financial system to be especially concerned about the ill will and they know it. So yes, they can shape the sort of business they want by instituting fees. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere and you'll both be happier.
Banks get away with this shit because they're about the most profitable industry there is.
Not really. You're confusing investment banking with retail banking. The two have little similarity. Retail banking is actually a pretty low margin business where economies of scale matter hugely. Don't confuse what investment banks Goldman Sachs does with what retail banks like Wells Fargo do. They are incredibly different businesses.