> though I feel bad for saying it, I can't blame them. If some idiot roots their phone and downloads malware, the bank may be responsible for refunding them. I can see why they don't want that headache.

Most of us understand the desire to protect customers from fraud, but I don't think we should accept blanket restrictions on everyone's freedom simply because some people might make poor security decisions.

There's also the unspoken/uncomfortable economic reality here: the optimal level of fraud isn't zero. At some point, the cost of preventing additional fraud, including the loss of individual choice and autonomy, exceeds the benefit.

Could we aim for proportionate, evidence-based security rather than treating the least capable user as the benchmark for everyone?

▲

oneplane an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> blanket restrictions on everyone's freedom

The scope is much smaller than that: restriction on what banking conveniences are provided.

> Most of us understand the desire to protect customers from fraud > At some point, the cost of preventing additional fraud, including the loss of individual choice and autonomy, exceeds the benefit > Could we aim for proportionate

I think you have answered your own question here; if a less than single percentage of retail customers use something that's not a general iOS or Android device, anything beyond that is not really worth it until regulation says otherwise.

	▲	logifail an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> > blanket restrictions on everyone's freedom > The scope is much smaller than that: restriction on what banking conveniences are provided. The freedom to install whatever OS you like on your own phone? > if a less than single percentage of __________ anything beyond that is not really worth it My goodness one could fill in that blank in so many different ways, and all of the ones I can immediately think of would drag this thread straight into any number of dire arguments, so I'd better not.

▲

Zak an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Someone flagged this comment to death (I vouched and restored it), and mine attracted some downvotes.

I'm surprised to see that in this thread. That's usually reserved for politics and arguments about AI.

	▲	oneplane an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Could be general polarisation, or just that it's a "but in my case it is different" visceral response. While people might not be moved by data, it would be interesting if some more public information on what people actually use was available. Imagine data points like unpatched/unpatchable iOS or Android devices being multiple percentages, or outdated browsers. Similarly, the effort per app/OS combination; if it costs X to support Y configuration, then it would be somewhat easier to see if it's more about the will to do anything rather than real-world problems.