[userbinator]

For example, the issue of password leakage due to a keylogger installed on a user's PC is considered to be a bank problem, not a user problem.

In other words, they're authoritarians at heart. They want complete control over the environment and don't want users to have any personal responsibility.

[pessimizer]

In non-authoritarian countries like the US, the users are responsible for all of the bank's losses.

[astrange]

They certainly aren’t. That’s what FDIC / Reg E / Reg NMS and co are for. US financial regulation is pretty customer friendly.

[LadyCailin]

And who do you think pays if the FDIC is activated?

[astrange]

Not the specific customers of the failed bank.

And not really anyone else either. You'd lose more wealth in a financial crisis than you would from the government printing money to refill the FDIC fund.

[shkkmo]

The FDIC is funded by insurance premiums that banks pay that are then invested an generate returns.

Thus it comes out of the returns the bank generates using your money to invest, and then also from the returns the FDIC generates investing the premiums.

In the case of a black swan event, the US Gov might have to step in to increase funding, but that is not how the FDIC normally operates.

[mardifoufs]

> In non-authoritarian countries like the US, the users are responsible for all of the bank's losses.

What? You can almost always get a refund even when someone gets access to your account. That's true for debit, and even more so for credit. Some types of transferts might be irreversible after a certain delay, but again, for customer facing retail banking, those are generally not widespread anyways

[yieldcrv]

hard to shake that off