Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!johnm From: johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Footnote to discussion of cameras in ATMs Message-ID: <753@auscso.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Nov-87 20:58:23 EST Article-I.D.: auscso.753 Posted: Sun Nov 29 20:58:23 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Dec-87 21:52:26 EST References: <5560@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <6252@sunybcs.UUCP> <284@caus-dp.UUCP> Reply-To: johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) Organization: Austin UNIX Users' Group, Austin, TX Lines: 26 In article <284@caus-dp.UUCP> marcos@caus-dp.UUCP (Marcos R. Della) writes: >The big problem is that even though they did catch the thief and convict >him, my sister only got back the money that she had lost after they >had turned on the cameras. She didn't get any of the other money back >even though the guy admitted to the crime... > >Now I ask you, is this fair? I suppose its the law, but then... If you read the card agreements on Debit cards you will notice that the Bank is not liable unless you notify them of the theft. This also includes credit cards. Once your sister alerted the bank she was covered. This protects the bank as well as the card holder. Suppose the spouse of a card holder neglected to tell the named holder that they were going to use the card and the named holder then discovered the card missing, and reported it stolen... well you can guess the kind of problems that could cause. As far as it being fair... Life isn't fair... But as long as you report the theft as soon as you discover it missing, you are covered... In her case, I presume she was the only holder, therefore she wouldn't have harmed anything by reporting it stolen as soon as she couldn't find it... These cards are great, but you do need to be careful with them. -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john \johnm