Slashdot Mirror
Keep Two Bank Accounts To Beat Cyber Attacks, Says Bank of England Adviser (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Everyone should keep two bank accounts so they can still access their money if one bank is hit by a cyber attack, a former Bank of England adviser has warned. "I'd certainly rather have two [accounts] in case my bank was attacked. I would want to know I could still get money out of the other one," banking expert Peter Hahn said in an interview with BBC's Today, ahead of the Bank of England's latest Financial Stability Report. According to the report, cyber risk is one of the five greatest dangers facing the UK banking industry.
Always keep at least two accounts in two non-related banks in at least two different countries.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Two is certainly not enough, you should at least have three bank accounts
one of the five greatest dangers facing the UK banking industry.
The other four involve filing for moral bankrupsy
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
A shed load of Cash hidden at home.
Some 30 years ago the ATMs on the west coast went toes up. Seems a backhoe had dug up a line on the east coast, without that line ATMs didn't work. Doesn't the dumbass bank have redundancies, you ask? Turns out the dug up line was the backup. A week earlier a heavy snowstorm had collapsed the roof of a building that banks needed to run the network.
I've effectively got 2 banks: a credit union and a stock brokerage account I can pull money out of quickly.
The others:
1) Bankers
2) Banking
3) Lying
4) Cheating
The others:
1) Bankers
2) Banking
3) Lying
4) Cheating
Those aren't dangers - they're just business as usual
Would the good gentleman from the Cass Business School, also enlighten us as to where this extra money might be secured?
This is a perfect example of what happens when people who have more than enough money believe they are communicating with the rest of the world.
1. Getting bank regulation that deserves that name
2. Not getting bailed out next time the gambling backfires
3. A country being able to pay back its debts and thus free to make a move on them
4. People catching on how things worked out for Iceland and Iceland becoming a role model
5. Anyone with some clout declaring "this bank is bankrupt". Because that can bankrupt any bank. No matter the size.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
everybody's got one? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stallman+privacy
Just don't leave your money in the bank to begin with. Keep it under your bed~
In order to have two bank accounts, one needs to have money. So, Peter Hahn, where do I get all this magic money you speak of? Working full time does not do it. Maybe you could give us all some so we can open multiple bank accounts?
All I need to make it happen are redundant paychecks.
NEWS: Banker recommend we have more bank accounts
This just in. Overdraft at 11!
Hi seems to be giving this advice in terms of personal banking and cyber crime but speaking as someone who has to juggle 3 different businesses I'm not sure if he would allude to this advice for business banking also. As far as I know we have the same protection as personal banks. currently I run 2 websites one based on http:www.freegaydatingworld.co... hs it's own account while the other 2 are in the same one. Presumably he is saying each of the entities should have 2 accounts each but this is pretty unworkable as it costs quite a lot business acocunts arent free while personal ones are here in the UK
Just put your money under your bed, you'll get better interest rate, right now the real interest rate is negative.
Don't use a bank, simple.
Here in Canada, having two accounts means paying twice the monthly fees... That can easily be $50/month for the average person. I guess that's why the big banks posted $35B in profits...
Glad to see that our banks or innovating to add value to their shareholders.
Keep zero bank account and invest in a good safe.
"Cyber attacks" might be among the biggest threats to the banking system, but the banking system is the biggest threat to people's worth.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Keeping two or more accounts is good advice for keeping yourself out of trouble if a cyber attack happens, but I don't think this beats them. They still managed to steal your money and disrupt your life.
Why don't you just visit their site instead of making yourself look like a fool?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
What does it cost for a bank account in the UK? Are they pursuing collecting two monthy fees from each consumer?
He's missing the point. You need cash, real, green money (don't get me started on the 'real' part). It's not just hackers, it's backhoe-fade, it's screwups where they seize your assets because of a bit-flip at the tax department, it's getting your account frozen because you googled something about Iran.
Plus, with the new "negative interest" trend, why keep money in the bank at all?
What's wrong with cash? Or is that too independent / liberty-y for the brits? Using two banks just doubles your risks of card / account / user/pass getting stolen.
If you go the "two banks" route, check which core processor they use for their accounting first. In the US, there are about 5 companies that smaller institutions use to run their account and transaction data. If the breach is one of the core processors, you don't want to have your two redundant banks on the same processor.
Of all the things to worry about, "my bank was breached" is pretty low on the list. Do brits lack something like the FDIC / NCUA?
Isn't this the same as raid for disk storage?
You run multiple disks spreading and duplicating data so that your availability is higher in case one (or more) disk(s) goes down.
For every disk you add, the chance that something will happen goes up, but the chance of you recovering your data can go up as well.
For your bank account I claim the same to be true. Two banks with different systems double the chance of you experiencing one that has a break-in.
Each bank may have different systems leading to different attack vectors.
You thus spread the money, getting less interest as you have less with each bank (interest level is often linked to ammount in steps.), and their liability if compromised is lower. I see the benefit from the banks perspective but not from yours.
Ive had a second account for Paypal, electronic bill pay, and such for a few years now. Both credit unions so it isnt like Im getting hit with fees and it at least makes me feel better to know that my important funds are less likely to suffer a disruption with at least some separation from the other funds that get the most e-churn.
I have a better suggestion; Keep your money out of the bank.
Today, it's more likely your money will be seized by a corporation, a bank, or by government than by any criminal. If you keep your money out of the bank in in a safe location, then even the IRS can't take it without you willingly giving it to them.
But wouldn't that make you twice as likely to be attacked?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Typical advice from an out-of-touch banker. This is impractical for those most at risk of serious consequences if their bank closes for a few days. It's not like getting an extra hard drive and copying your money to the backup bank. You have to split your limited assets and make sure you meet the minimum requirements of two institutions. And heaven help you if each requires you to have direct deposit in order to avoid monthly fees.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
greedy bankers and greedy inept politicians.
and worse, what if both banks "get hacked"?
I'd rather see banks spending money to make their systems secure, than take any effort to spead my risk. I'm pretty certain that any investigation of bank hacks will turn up plentiful examples of cases where the bank could have spent some time and money on protecting the assets BETTER.
So what exactly are the banks doing to earn their profit? Nothing much.
I'm an American, I don't hand any money in my bank account. Take that Cyber Criminals!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Would assume that everyone has enough money to fund two bank accounts to the the level necessary to keep them solvent in the event of the inaccessibility of one of them ... must be nice to have that kind of money available.
I have one account with fiat money, one with Bitcoins.
And one with Dogecoins, one with Litecoins, etc.
If your bank gets attacked, they have insurance, you can still get your money. Their fuckups are not your problem.
I am completely insulated from cyber banking attacks, I don't need to spread my risk across 2 bank accounts, because 0 + 0 = 0
I should also have two cars, just in case one of them fails I can still get to work without disruption.
I should also have two homes, just in case one of them catches fire I can live in the other.
I should also have two doctors on call 24/7, so that if one takes vacation I can see the other in an emergency.
I should also have all the money to do all these things, including being able to afford the fees to open accounts at two separate banks.
Since I don't, I'll just have to keep on doing what I'm doing now. And expect that banks meet the challenge of cyber attack in a way that does not disrupt my being able to visit my branch and withdraw cash (in short, they do their job as custodian of my money and I'll do mine.)
That advice seems really great for people that have tons of disposable income where they can split their assets like that. Meanwhile, the 75% or so of the populace that's living paycheck to paycheck is going to take one look at that and be like yeah...no. If you're barely making enough to pay the bills how are you supposed to fork your assets into two different accounts like that?
There have been times when I've had multiple bank accounts. However, eventually, one bank ended up buying the other, leaving me with two accounts at the same bank.
Ban general purpose computers. No computers, no computer crime: it's really that simple. Locked-down smartphones and tablets can fulfill all of a user's needs. I know not everyone has the scope to see this but eventually society will see the light.
refer to several articles on Art of Manliness about 'antifragility'
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
Better advice: keep cash on hand in two locations (secured safe and a hidden book-style location). It doesn't need to be a fortune - just enough to buy gas and groceries for two weeks.
Hawker of Product X says use Product X more.
What do you expect a banker to say? Use cash or barter? Nope they're never going to say that.
I just found out last week my housekeeper has never had a bank account. They never have to worry about "The Evil Hackers" getting their bank info because they don't have any. They have a prepaid credit card they put money on whenever they want to buy something online. Given how low interest rates are, there's no real loss of interest. In fact it sounds easier to me. You don't have to put up with the ridiculous withdrawal limits, hold times for checks, reports to the Feds, or any of the other nonsense banks do.
I keep multiple bank accounts, just in case. I also keep enough in each account to be able to buy a Mercedes, in case my main one happens to get stolen on the same day my bank is cyberattacked. I thought about keeping enough in the accounts to pay cash for a new house if my main villa happens to burn down on the same day my bank gets cyberattacked, but that just seemed silly and over the top.