> The information accessed is not sufficient to make fraudulent charges on your payment card. In other words... "We leaked a bunch of your personal information, but at least it's not enough data to steal your money!" All of these leaks have the cumulative effect of making ineffective very commonly used security verification questions: "Can I verify that last 4 of your social? And the last 4 of your credit card?" How…
Surely the actual problem here is that the responsibility for reliable identification somehow falls on the consumer, not the bank or what have you? I'll give an example: if I get a phishing email claiming to be from my bank, and end up wiring them $1000, I'm out $1000 for not having done the due diligence for verifying that it in fact was my bank; my bank doesn't suddenly owe me $1000. Somehow, though, if some 3rd pa…
Re: DoorDash confirms data breach affected 4.9M customers, workers and merchants
#61The problem with what you're proposing is that, as far as I understand, the real "consequences" for things like identity theft end up being intangibles like "time" and "annoyance" or "credit score". I don't think you'll actually be out $1000, the bank will just reverse it or it will be covered under some sort of insurance or something. Many times its just people taking out fraudulent loans under your name (vs. directly stealing money from you), so it gets handled entirely "digitally" and you experience no long term financial harm. Because of that, no one ends up "angry" at the bank, since what they lost was a week in "hassle".