|
|
|
|
|
|
by staunch
4415 days ago
|
|
|
> This is Hacker News - not Reddit. In the past on HN (I've been here slightly longer than you) I doubt anyone would even consider challenging the idea that banks can't secure their user's data. It used to be a bunch of very technical people who have seen inside the various sausage factories. The fact that you think banks being "...in direct compliance with worldwide security standards" means they are able to secure their customer's data is truly laughable. I mean that literally, if you said it to any credible security expert they would probably think it was sarcasm and laugh with you. If you want to set a standard of proof we can actually debate this. What would it take to convince you that banks don't do a good job of protecting the privacy of their customer's data? I can generate like 3 links every 10 seconds on Google. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240208933/More-than-half... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/barclays-bank-cyber... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/technology/14security.html... |
|
|
A few clarifications to help you out and keep you from ranting -
[1] Your current username has been slightly longer than my current username. Whether one or the other of us has been here longer is unknown.
[2] If being compliant with ISO 27001 is laughable to you then I await your superior system for the baseline of Information technology; Security techniques; Information security management systems and their Requirements, accredited by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
[3] If you have empirical data to back up your assertions post it. Huffington Post articles and LA Times articles which are technically illiterate are not empirical evidence.
[4] The majority of all technical accreditation and training programs including SANS, EC-Council, CISSP, CISA et al all utilise the ISO suite as a baseline.
[5] Your entire post reads as if you hate banks, you hate 27001 and you know of better established security practices than are currently in use by the worldwide banking industry.
A few facts for consideration -
[a] Assets of the largest 1,000 banks in 2008/2009 financial year were US$96.4 trillion. 96 Trillion.
[b] The United States alone has an estimated 82,000 banking branches spread across 7085 institutions.
[c] As of Nov 2009, China's top 4 banks have in excess of 67,000 branches (ICBC:18000+, BOC:12000+, CCB:13000+, ABC:24000+) with an additional 140 smaller banks with an undetermined number of branches.
[d] Japan had 129 banks and 12,000 branches.
[e] In 2004, Germany, France, and Italy each had more than 30,000 branches—more than double the 15,000 branches in the UK.
Is your hypothesis really that banks have laughable security? Not a specific bank or a specific department of a specific bank but banks?
An industry worth a 96 thousand billion dollars (96,000,000,000,000) does not know how to secure customer data?
Interesting viewpoint you have and ludicrous. It is right up there with the sort of people that say things like "I hate all wines from California" or "All Microsoft products suck."
IE - Juvenile comments submitted to HN with no regard for accuracy, clarity or discernment.