Working for a bank, this one scares me. A Miami businessman did not maintain his virus-checking software and was infected with a bit of viral spyware that allowed a hacker to gain control of his system. The hacker than transferred $90,000 to Latvia - a former Soviet Union nation known for problems with cybercriminals. Now, the businessman is suing Bank of America for not protecting him against this kind of event.
Who is really responsible in this case? (Well, aside from the criminal in Latvia who should be captured and put away for a long, long time.) The bank's position is that it had no way to know the transfer was fraudulent. Latvia is NOT on the list of banned or highly-sensitive nations that ALL banks must maintain and control transfers to. (Yes, there is such a list. I have seen it.) The businessman's position is that the bank was aware of the existence of the viral spyware, and should have offered him protection.
This has to be one of those middle-of-the-road things. The guy is liable for not protecting himself. This is the equivilent of telling the bank to allow anyone using his cell phone to do transfers, and then leaving the cell phone in the middle of Grand Central Station. At the same time, this was definitely abnormal behavior for this customer, and it should have raised SOME red flags for tha bank. I know the bank I work for has systems in place to alert us for strange activity.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder