Samsung Recent Security Incident

Re:Samsung Recent Security Incident by dec0dedab0de on Friday September 02, 2022 @03:43PM (#32694981)

There was a push a while back to call it bank fraud. Because the banks are the victims and should be responsible to protect/insure themselves.

By calling it identity theft, we are saying individuals are the victims and should protect the banks from someone pretending to be them.

Edit: I also believe there was an argument that banks reporting to credit agencies based on fraudulent activity from a 3rd party should be treated as libel.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Samsung Recent Security Incident by jen20 on Saturday September 03, 2022 @12:11AM (#32698631)

> I also believe there was an argument that banks reporting to credit agencies based on fraudulent activity from a 3rd party should be treated as libel.

This is interesting - do you know if it has ever been tested?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Samsung Recent Security Incident by dec0dedab0de on Sunday September 04, 2022 @01:12PM (#32715254)

I don't know, and I don't even remember where I heard it, I think it was on here but I dont know. I think maybe I was wrong about 'bank fraud' and the term being pushed was 'bank libel' instead of identity theft. Because all the negative sides of supposed 'identity theft' were from the banks saying the individual did something they did not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Samsung Recent Security Incident by buildbot on Saturday September 03, 2022 @12:37AM (#32698779)

I’d donate to gofundme for the legal costs next time it comes up…

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Samsung Recent Security Incident by cush on Friday September 02, 2022 @08:58PM (#32697487)

Every bank I deal with (3 of them) take responsibility for any claims from identity theft/bank fraud. Looks like the push worked!

[ Parent | on HN ]