Security of Electronic Banking

spARTacus

Well-known member
What do people think about the level of security today for electronic banking?
.
.
.
Here's a CBC article that I think is basically attempting to drum up and capture some interest.


Normally I find CBC's goPublic articles a bit interesting, but sometimes poorly articulating. Normally with these CBC goPublic cases there is someone or some group that was cheated or ill served and fundamental issues that need fixing. Sometimes however, people also just don't pay enough attention, aren't aware enough, and have led themselves to wrong expectations.

In this case I think the lady (and the public in general) probably aren't aware enough of some of the nuance risks associated to e-transfers. In this case, I think CBC goPublic has helped to improve awareness.

However, the CBC article could have done a better job at hammering home the root cause issue behind how this particular scam/situation (and others like it) can succeed. Overall, a dependency on auto-deposit does nothing and can do nothing to help until the money gets to the deposit state of the transaction. It's called "auto-deposit", not "auto-receive". Overall it is also generally never wise to depend on an untrusted source for providing evidence or demonstration of proof/confidence when such proof/confidence is required. Such proof/confidence needs to come from only trusted sources via trusted methods.

In this case the buyer showing the seller (probably on the buyer's phone via their email) that the buyer executed an e-transfer, is not valid proof/confidence and not a trusted method of verifying that such has actually happened (in this case because the buyer has the ability to cancel such after driving away with the goods).

The CBC article in this case did ok to basically say "...until the funds show-up in your account, until you see them via your phone, don't trust that the cheque is indeed in the mail and can't return to sender...".

However, CBC could have taken the opportunity to also better educate folks about how this situation applies also to many other general and security situations. Instead, the CBC article kept harping on the trustworthiness of the e-transfer protocol. Perhaps CBC did that because in their mind the bigger issue revealed by this case is that lesser banks provide their customers with a grace period for rescinding e-transfers, and the "e-transfer protocol" shouldn't permit such. However, if sellers execute good practices for proof/confidence, then for cases like these it is irrelevant if some lesser banks also have a rescind capacity, because the sale would not ever be final until the money first actually shows up.
.
.
What do people think of this particular case, generally about the state of security for electronic banking, or other thoughts from this situation?

Mods: Feel free to create a new forum category to move this thread into.
 
Last edited:

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
If you want real security in banking, as well as credit cards, stores, and other places, your information could be exposed. This is a very simple fix.

You fine the company or bank a very large sum of money per customer for every breach. All of a sudden it will become a priority.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
Sounds like a decent consideration. For the CBC goPublic article situation, no one would be fined.
 

Chuck Finley69

Active member
If you want real security in banking, as well as credit cards, stores, and other places, your information could be exposed. This is a very simple fix.

You fine the company or bank a very large sum of money per customer for every breach. All of a sudden it will become a priority.
The fines already exist with certain products in that issuing company has to cover losses for the customer already. Simply force other products to be held to comparable standards.
 

durendal

Member
I don't know about this e-transfer thing, but where I'm from, digital payments are instant. And once payments leave your account, there is no way you can cancel it, especially since you need an authentication to confirm the transfer. Most scams I'm aware of are in the form of phising. You'd be surprised how many gullible person there are out there.
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
I don't know about this e-transfer thing, but where I'm from, digital payments are instant. And once payments leave your account, there is no way you can cancel it, especially since you need an authentication to confirm the transfer. Most scams I'm aware of are in the form of phising. You'd be surprised how many gullible person there are out there.
I think what really pisses me off is when an elderly person gets scammed. all of a sudden the banks have no idea how this happened.
 
Top