by Mike Masnick
Wed, Jun 8th 2011 10:03pm
An interesting ruling coming out of Maine. A judge has sided with a bank, in a case in which a company tried to blame its bank for not having better security, after it was hit by a trojan horse password stealer on one of its computers and subsequently had scammers transfer about $600k out of its account. The judge agreed that the bank did not have particularly good security, but also noted that there is no legal requirement that the bank have the absolutely best security. This is definitely the right decision, even if some may have a gut reaction the other way. To some extent, the company has to take some responsibility for its own actions, and on the flip-side, one would hope that market pressures would drive the banks to implement better security. For example, in this case, the bank itself -- Ocean Bank -- is getting a ton of bad publicity about its really poor security due to this lawsuit. So, even if it's won the lawsuit, that hardly means the bank comes out of it unscathed.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Why Even Justified Criticisms Of GNU Privacy Guard Miss The Point
- How Hillary Clinton Exposed Her Emails To Foreign Spies... In Order To Hide Them From The American Public
- NSA Director: If I Say 'Legal Framework' Enough, Will It Convince You Security People To Shut Up About Our Plan To Backdoor Encryption?
- Lenovo CTO Claims Concerns Over Superfish Are Simply 'Theoretical'
- Lenovo Quietly Deletes That Bit About 'No Security Concerns' To Superfish... While Superfish Says 'No Consumers Vulnerable'