Slashdot Mirror
UK Bank TSB Admits 1,300 Accounts Hit By Fraud Amid IT Meltdown (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader shares a BBC report: Life savings have been stolen from TSB accounts by fraudsters "exploiting" the bank's IT problems, with 1,300 people losing money. On occasions, people were waiting on the phone for up to nine hours to report cases, the bank's boss Paul Pester has told MPs. He said that 70 times the normal level of fraud attacks were seen last month. The introduction of a new IT system in April left customers struggling to make transactions and see their balances. The bank said it would compensate customers in full for any fraud they suffered. The evidence came after the financial regulator confirmed that it was investigating TSB and criticised Mr Pester for an "optimistic view" of services after the meltdown.
(rounded obviously). Only 19 successful attempts per month is the average?
Sure gives a person a "lot of faith" in a cashless society, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Is this the first major violation since GDPR came into effect? Will be very interesting to know what will happen..
There aren't fewer successful attacks of this kind, there are more of them as time passes, and the consequences of them are getting worse not better. There's obviously a fundamental problem with these critical systems and obviously nobody is doing anything about it. Do we need to go back to doing everything with paper until everyone gets their act together and fixes it?
"The bank said it would compensate customers in full for any fraud they suffered."
I believe my solicitors may have a slight difference of opinion of the number of significant digits of compensation...
The bank lost the money. The still owes the customers their funds. The customers only loose if the bank goes out of business.
Customers generally don't lose when the bank goes out of business because of deposit protection. They generally do lose when they authorize the transfer of funds to a fraudster, although in this case customers may be luckier than usual because the bank is partly at fault for not having enough people to answer the phone.
Dog bites man. Contract law falls off turnip truck. Learned-helplessness porn, FTW. You know, could you grab a brain, please?
How about this, instead?
I'm sure there's a nasty time gap between pronto and ASAP, because numerical restitution needs to be performed with extreme competence and exactitude.
Of course, if TSB shit the bed all the way to insolvency, the collective "fix this—you dirt-licking mofo—pretty please, with sugar on top" shit-storm presages a nasty run.
If anybody is keeping their 'life savings' in a bank they're doing it wrong. A bank is a place to keep working funds, not life savings. Anything you have in a bank is losing money to inflation. It's not working for you, it's working for the bank.
This just isn't true. In cases of identity theft the direct financial cost is almost always born by either the banks or the credit card companies.
It is the indirect financial cost which is born by the victim. This typically is the inability to procure future loans due to erroneously damaged credit history caused by the thief. Civil problems due to fraudulent contracts signed by the thief which must be litigated and such.
The direct financial cost is covered in the U.S..