I think this is more than just a case of right and wrong here.
While its easy to say its the customers fault, which it is, that isnt always the best coarse of action for the bank.
People need to be able to trust their bank, and that their money is going to be their when they need it.
In order for people to keep their security in the bank, they may need to bite the bullet on some things.
Even though Im pretty sure it would never happen to me, I would still lean more towards a bank that offered phishing protection, just because its an extra layer of safety net that would make me feel more secure with my money.
So the question comes up, "If the banks don't pay for phishing damages, are they going to lose more money than they save?"
I think the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you just say cheaper?! hhahahah lol roflmfao
I think this is more than just a case of right and wrong here. While its easy to say its the customers fault, which it is, that isnt always the best coarse of action for the bank. People need to be able to trust their bank, and that their money is going to be their when they need it. In order for people to keep their security in the bank, they may need to bite the bullet on some things. Even though Im pretty sure it would never happen to me, I would still lean more towards a bank that offered phishing protection, just because its an extra layer of safety net that would make me feel more secure with my money. So the question comes up, "If the banks don't pay for phishing damages, are they going to lose more money than they save?" I think the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.