It is time to log-in to online banking sessions the same exact way we access our cash at an ATM. The good news is with HomeATM's SLIM, there is no threat from either skimming devices or hidden camera's deployed to capture our card information and PINs, respectively!With the recent discovery of dangerous online banking Trojans, URLZone, Clampi and Zeus, our chances on winning the war against fraudsters is: SLIM and None! Here's a closer look at the recent U.S. District Court in Illinois Decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed.
I've got a copy of the first page of the court's decision below. Click it to enlarge and read...If you want to read the entire decision... Wired has it here
Meanwhile, there has been: Another Lawsuit Filed Against Weak Online Banking Authentication (pindebit.blogspot.com)
U.S. District Court in Illinois says bank customers can sue for security breach
Plaintiffs who had funds stolen from their online home equity account can sue their bank for failing to implement adequate security measures, a U.S. District Court in Illinois has ruled.
An unknown person gained access to the plaintiffs' online bank account with the defendant and stole $26,500
The plaintiffs sued for negligence under Indiana law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty to sufficiently secure its online banking system.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that security measures were inadequate because the bank protected access to online accounts simply by means of a user name and password, or "single-factor identification."
The court concluded that this was sufficient to support a negligence claim based on evidence that that a federal banking industry panel recommended that financial institutions use "multifactor identification" checks for online accounts.
The court observed that the federal guidelines "described single-factor identification (username/ password) as 'inadequate' to secure the online transactions of financial institutions. Although [the defendant] notes that it had begun to implement additional security measures at the beginning of 2007, a vice president of the bank admitted that only single-factor identification protected plaintiffs' account at the time of the theft. In light of [the defendant's] apparent delay in complying with [the federal] security standards, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that the bank breached its duty to protect plaintiffs' account against fraudulent access."
In addition, the court concluded that the defendant could be sued under the Truth in Lending Act for charging interest on the stolen funds after the plaintiffs had disputed the debt, and under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for reporting to credit bureaus that the plaintiffs were delinquent on their home equity line of credit.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Shames-Yeakel v. Citizens Financial Bank, No. 07 C 5387. Aug. 21, 2009. Lawyers USA No. 993-1119.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uuSe2TB0cUdoPkSa4JUF2rBBTnMw8C6c_2Wv9qkIER21S6xREnBZTmLNSZEJJ8QiY3TKpyABvbwbsM2RSzXKd_aIS604D6minQCmRLSW4WvSz6-DHZEUsvO136mXHVthUnvYTLEf7KT5RZTLhz2NHA=s0-d)
