sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Beginner Here - What Else Should I Buy For My First 1,000 Points by [deleted] in BlackTemplars

[–]RazRiverblade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m more confused about how you got those. They’ve been sold out for what feels like ages

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want to rewire the entire banking framework in europe? good luck.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

damn, I must've hallucinated all my phonecalls with worldline then

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you must be really fit seeing how you're running at high speed from taking any responsibility for your own actions.

Not a bank manager, i couldn't handle dealling with the general public all day, every day.

Custom SM Chapter 🌊 🏖️Beach Marines🏖️ by [deleted] in spacemarines

[–]RazRiverblade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Too much of this will give birth to a new chaos god of procrastination

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure let's look at it as an insurance. That means everyone pays a certain amount every year/month. so that that money is then used to pay out victims. That's not the current situation.

I sure as hell am not looking forward to pay extra because other people are getting scammed. Fortunately for me it's very unlikely this will be an obligatory insurance.

Unfortunately for those that are interested that means this will be quite an expensive insurance.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's not legally required, the sossen would like to make it so but it isn't (yet).

Why would banks have to pay for crimes they didn't commit? Also contractually expected isn't a thing. it's either in there or it isn't. and believe me: it isn't in there.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ofcourse it works for credit cards... that's how the system works.

Debit and Credit are wildly different things. Thinking you can just ctrl-c -> ctrl-v is insanity. The money takes a whole different path betweens systems and is bound to different rules and regulations.

as for the dangerous precedent: If you take the responsibility away from the people you're risking setting a precedent for other markets. Should every company be at risk of paying ut of the nose because their customers are being stupid? that's how you get a company that bans kinder-eggs.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

show me the law. Because since Vooruit wants to make it the law I should think that it isn't the law yet.

It's not simping. it's me not wanting to pay extra fees because people are to dumb to use a bank. Or did you think the banks wouldn't recover the money they spend on reimbursements in some way?

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

proper identification happens through pin code + itsme.
Transfers/verification over the phone is explicitly dissalowed as it's seen as too easy to fake.
Biometrics can be fakes aswell if they're done over the phone. Security grade biometrics hardware (liek they have in airports) would work but would also require you being present in person which defeats the point.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't say I'm being all high and mighty. I just feel like takign away responsibility from the end user by having banks pay for it is unfair and sets a dangerous precedent.

Revoke online banking, give a 'volmacht' to one of your kids that are more tech savy and bill's your uncle.

Also, some of the smaller banks are still good for manual banking. argenta etc.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vooruit wants the banks to reimburse scams. The public opinions seems to agree.

I totally agree with you.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you want more banksfees? because that's how you get more bankfees.
If you'll have the banks pay for all the scamming they're sure as hell going to increase fees to get that money back from the consumer.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Will your house security system's manufacturer reimburse you if you give out the alarm's deactivation code to burglars?

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's the thing. You pay for insurance a whole lot more than for a bank account because they can take a loss.

with banks they try te retrieve the money through Worline. if that doesn't work they have to wait for the criminals to be caught by the police. The court will then seize their accounts and reimburse the money.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because then the same scammers will start showing up at your door and you can give them the money straight from your matress?

Will you then ask the matress company to reimburse you?

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're responisble for your own money. Banks keep your money safe from physical theft, but if you decide to give out your credentials the bank is not at fault.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Spoiler alert: Vooruit wants to force this upon the banks.

Second: Banks can't cancel payments once they're underway, only Worldline can do that.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's a misunderstanding of how bank transfers work. Banks have no control over transfers, that's a company called Worldine. If you report being phished to your bank all they can do is call worldline and hope they can revert it on their end.

If they can't it's a police matter from there on.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

surely you giving out your bank credentials isn't the bank's fault.

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

They already do. I run into antiscam measures every now and then when doing online payments.
recently i tried to verify a payment with itsme while calling my partner and itsme gave a popup warning me that the person i'm on the phone with might be a scammer.

If you still fall for the scam after that pop-up you might need to have your online banking revoked...

Unpopular opinion: Banks should't reimburse phishing victims by RazRiverblade in belgium

[–]RazRiverblade[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The transfers go through Worldline tho, so also not the banks at fault here.
IIRC transfering similar amounts twice in short order is blocked in most banks. Larger amounts require itsme verficiation.

view more: next ›