Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#61

Post by idlewords »

Wistar wrote: post #53
ananonymoususer wrote: post #50

Nothing is 100% secure, but I have opted for a high-quality gun/fire safe that's bolted to the foundation of my home (in a gated community), and protected by multiple monitored alarm systems and cameras. The safe has a lot more room than any bank's box would, it's cheaper in the long-run, and IMHO (especially after reading the fine article) more secure. Also, it's got a S&G spin-dial lock that I trust a lot more than…

Where in the house is the safe located? I saw a video some years ago that made a fairly compelling case for locating the safe in a pantry or laundry room or anywhere other than the master bedroom, master closet, master bath or home office.

Piggybacking off of that, what is the combination? As your friends here at HN, we want to make sure it's cryptographically strong.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#62

Post by Eisenstein »

twblalock wrote: post #40
jolux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a regulatory regime Yet somehow smaller banks and credit unions don't have this problem. I've not had any issues like this with my Schwab checking account.

I didn’t have any issues like that with my Wells Fargo checking account either. But apparently they happened, so one person’s experience is not exactly useful here.

What an absurd retort. No one can prove a negative (prove your bank hasn't scammed other people), but you can prove that Wells Fargo was scamming people. You can assert anything you like, but it is not the onus of others to prove you wrong.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#63

Post by mint2 »

gorgoiler wrote: post #60
Wistar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the house is the safe located? I saw a video some years ago that made a fairly compelling case for locating the safe in a pantry or laundry room or anywhere other than the master bedroom, master closet, master bath or home office.

While it would be nice to have something that could withstand a casual burglar, the more likely threat to my stuff is a house fire. Where is the best for a safe to survive in a burning building, but also not be visible to anyone and remain thermally neutral? Fire safes are passive thermal sinks that reflect and damp heat transfer for as long as possible before ultimately turning into a giant heavy toaster oven. I won…

You want a floor safe in your basement.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#64

Post by mint2 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #62
twblalock wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t have any issues like that with my Wells Fargo checking account either. But apparently they happened, so one person’s experience is not exactly useful here.

What an absurd retort. No one can prove a negative (prove your bank hasn't scammed other people), but you can prove that Wells Fargo was scamming people. You can assert anything you like, but it is not the onus of others to prove you wrong.

that was not absurd. It’s pointing out that an anecdote doesn’t really say much.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#66

Post by montebicyclelo »

theamk wrote: post #10

Great article to show to people saying "put your backup passphrase / second hardware key into the safe deposit box" Keeping physical stuff safe is hard. Banks were specifically invented so that people didn't need to keep valuables on them.

Are you saying we should find 0 interest accounts and encode our passphrases into values to deposit?

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#67

Post by SapporoChris »

twblalock wrote: post #41
version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't take it that way, I just thought when they were describing WF they didn't mince words, which I appreciate. I didn't see any implication that others are better. In some way, saying they all do it would dilute the criticism more.

Everyone in the media knows that when you single out a particular company, or person, or politician for criticism it makes their competitors look better. Nobody who works at a major news organization is unaware of this.

I have to disagree. The failure of ones peers does not make a person wise.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#69

Post by kennyloginz »

User23 wrote: post #19
derefr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> labor is costly Why would one need labor to operate a safe-deposit box business? Can't you just have a very secure warehouse full of boxes, with warehouse robots that will grab those boxes and put them into a drop slot when someone taps the appropriate smart card? Before anyone says that that's impractical/too expensive: there are robotic parking garages that do this for cars, and that's a much higher OpEx.

> Why would one need labor to operate a safe-deposit box business? Because physical security boils down to capable men with guns, whether that's private security, the police, or godfather type arrangements.

drones , remote weapons, surveillance tech, “lingering weapons”, has shown that physical security absolutely does not boil down to “ capable men with guns”.

Re: Safe deposit boxes aren’t safe (2019)

#70

Post by simonblack »

loeg wrote: post #13
simonblack wrote: post #4

The Banks would prefer you to pay a fee so that you can donate your valuables to that Bank. If you don't control those assets, they are no longer yours. You doubt that? Just try to access that safety deposit box when that bank is closed for the night. One day that Bank will close for the night and not reopen for quite a while if at all. What will you do then?

> One day that Bank will close for the night and not reopen for quite a while if at all. Are you talking about Fridays? Or something else?

There are lots of instances where Banks and/or other financial institutions close for the night 'as usual', but then never reopen. What happens to all those accounts that are never able to be accessed again by their 'owners'?

Examples: Lehmann Brothers in New York, Pyramid in Australia, that Scottish bank in England some 10 years back, Barings Bank, etc, etc. And there was also the Savings and Loan fiasco in the US around 1990.

Most people lost the lot, or at the very least lost a goodly proportion of their assets.

Post reply on HN