NewOldPlayer |
09-25-2014 05:45 PM |
Bank Scam: Why isn't the bank liable for ID Theft?
When somebody walks into a bank, pulls a gun, and robs them, the Bank is liable. You don't get a letter from the bank saying "We had a bank robbery last week, sorry, your money is gone."
So when the criminal uses technology to rob the bank, why is the consumer liable?
As with the gun robbery, the bank didn't have the security to block the theft. With the technological crime, ID Theft, the Bank still does not have the security to block the theft, So, why in the hell does the consumer have to cover the loss?
It makes no sense at all. ID Theft is the bank's problem, not the consumer's.
The bank simply can't afford to protect it's accounts, so it uses the consumer to pay for it.
I've never had funds removed via ID theft, but if it happens one day, I will sue the bank for making me liable for the theft and hold them responsible for my funds that I deposited in their bank. It's just that simple.
It's absurd how the bank system has turned the criminal act around, and now it's the consumer's fault their ID was stolen and money was illegal removed from their account.
With that logic, it's also our fault the man had a gun and stole money from the bank.
The bank is liable for all the deposits and if they are illegally removed via by gun or by technology, without the knowledge of the consumer IT IS THE BANK'S FAULT, NOT THE CONSUMERS. The bank was robbed, not the consumer.
That is why we pay fees to the bank to begin with. To hold our money safe and securely...we don't pay the bank to one day hear: "sorry, we were robbed last week and your money was stolen."
How did everything get so turned around? Consumers pay banks millions in fees annually and the bank isn't liable to protect our deposits? That is the first and foremost act they are supposed to do. Protect our money. It's insane the public has forgotten that basic principal and allows the banks to hold us responsible for a job they no longer know how to do.
|