Not at all. As I said originally:
> I think it is a little more nuanced. While I think banks should shoulder more of the responsibility account owners also need to be invested in keeping their personal information secure.
Some of the comments on this article just strike me as quite idealistic about the ability of banks to bear full responsibility for authentication and authorisation. Practically, I think it works more smoothly when both parties are invested.
I agree, although I'd say it was the banks that need to be more invested, not their customers.
I take significant precautions to maintain the security of my account details and debit/credit cards. My bank is, to say the least, inconsistent about such things. If I travel more than 50 miles (~80km) from my home and attempt to use my debit card, my bank will sometimes (but not always) decline such transactions unless I call them and authenticate myself. Then again, I just had to cancel my debit card, as someone was using it in the Dominican Republic (I live in the US/Northeast) -- and my bank just approved the charges without question.
And so, because my bank doesn't enforce its anti-fraud rules consistently, I get the worst of both worlds -- declined valid charges when I travel, and approved fraudulent charges when fraud is definitely more likely. Sigh.
Edit: Clarified why the Dominican Republic wasn't likely as a valid place for my debit card to be used.
Imagine a world where bank fraud was only possible in that rare scenario you described, and then only for a limited amount of time since you can be required to report loss of identity documents, and then only for transactions that cannot be reverted in time, and even then financial liability might be pushed on to the bank(/'s insurance). That'd solve practically all of the current day bank fraud, without in any way solving your hypothetical.