Re: Should ATM service provided be held liable?

From: Unruh (unruh-spam_at_physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 06/22/05

  • Next message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Should ATM service provided be held liable?" 
    Date: 21 Jun 2005 22:27:18 GMT

    "GEO" Me@home.here writes:

    >On 21 Jun 2005 18:22:47 GMT, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

    ><snip>
    >>
    >>>Suppose a gang of theives has installed a full set of information
    >>>capturing devices -- e.g., a very thin card reader in front of the real
    >>>slot,.
    >....<snip>

    >>The bank could be held liable in this case, especially if the ATM is at the
    >>bank. ...
    ><snip>

    > What was the response of the Canadian bank whose ATM was altered
    >this way? Didn't they just say that the customers are responsible that
    >no camera could record their information? I know that my bank put
    >stickers indicating this ('Use your other hand to cover the hand
    >punching the keypad').

    Did it ever go to court? The case of the person in the UK who was thrown in
    jail for fraud because he claimed an atm transaction had not been made by
    him was ultimately thrown out of court when the bank's blatantly self
    serving statements were challenged. Just because the bank says it does not
    make it true.

    Mind you their advice is good. If you have to go to court to prove the bank
    liable, it will cost far far far more than was ever removed from your
    account by the scanners. It is far better not to get involved than it is to
    prove another person liable after the damage has been done.

  • Next message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Should ATM service provided be held liable?"

    Relevant Pages