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

71–80 of 162 posts

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

#71

Post by simonblack »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #42
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?

If I go far away on holiday the assets in my home are no longer under my control.

That is so true. And there is many a husband (or wife) who has come home after work to find the house completely stripped bare, and the spouse nowhere to be found.

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

#72

Post by tda »

mint2 wrote: post #63
gorgoiler wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you mitigate the flood risk in a basement. Sewer malfuntioning, heavy rain, but also firefighters flooding your burning house?

I would think (no numbers to back it up) for most houses the risk of flooding is higher that the risk of burning down

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

#73

Post by ApolloRising »

tda wrote: post #72
mint2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want a floor safe in your basement.

How do you mitigate the flood risk in a basement. Sewer malfuntioning, heavy rain, but also firefighters flooding your burning house? I would think (no numbers to back it up) for most houses the risk of flooding is higher that the risk of burning down

Waterproof bag used for Scuba or a pelican case.

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

#75

Post by WalterBright »

idlewords wrote: post #61
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.

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

I just use 1-2-3-4-5 for everything.

Edit: oh crap, not again

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

#76

Post by drexlspivey »

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…

Someone with a gun can still force you to open it.

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

#77

Post by tabulatouch »

drexlspivey wrote: post #76
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…

Someone with a gun can still force you to open it.

You need a second "honeypot" safe to handle that sotuation.

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

#79

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

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.

> No one can prove a negative

I can prove it didn’t rain yesterday where I live.

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

#80

Post by Lio »

wahern wrote: post #9
aeternum wrote: post #3

$246 annual rent in return for a potential $10M+ liability? No wonder banks are getting out of this business.

I pay about $400/year for $1.5 million in commercial property liability insurance for a small office space. And the risk of somebody "slipping" and collecting $1.5 million is far, far more likely. Every time you drive your car or bicycle you take the risk of running over a star athlete or CEO, and facing a $10 million judgement on lost earnings. Anyhow, banks will typically require liability disclaimers from deposit…

> I'm guessing the real reason for not wanting these deposit boxes is the same reason banks are shedding branch staff--labor is costly;

It's because most business schools teach business administrators to seek rent for doing nothing.

Making anything, providing any service or really doing anything other than pure rent seeking is an opportunity to be beaten by those who care enough to do it better and so should be avoided.

The ideal business would be one where capital is rented out for maximum return without having to think about how to get the best return.

To a remote man with a spreadsheet everything has a cost and nothing has a value.

Post reply on HN