We have officially checked out, though with our flight leaving in the evening, we will spend most of the day by the pool. However, the "security" room (against the wall near the reception) for our bags doesn't fill me with confidence. As people who have been robbed of bags twice on holiday, once from a hotel security room, I give it a 50/50 chance of them being there when we leave.
Overall, it has felt safe here and while we started off using cash only, we have loosened up a bit and have moved to bank card instead. Because of the security measures on baking in Finland, the chances of mass damage are slim, larger purchases require a pin and online purchases have to be approved through a authenticator app tied to the bank, but separate from the bank app.
I was reading again how a person in Australia lost over 100K because he was replying to bank SMSs ad transferring funds over the phone with an "agent" and, the banks are taking no responsibility for it. It just shouldn't be possible in this day and age and there should be some duty of care policy enforced on the banks, since they are the custodians of the money.
When we (ex and I) were robbed in Australia, it was from my father's house and in order to keep the insurance, security had to be upgraded even further. How come the banks aren't held to the same standard?
When asked if they would volunteer to reimburse victims of scams through their banks, the flat answer was, no. Which I get, since if they do, the scam will be to engineer scams. But at the same time, they should be held accountable in some way, and the bare minimum should be through their digital infrastructure.
Why anyone or any business would be using SMS for official communication is beyond me, though it could be used for alerts that send someone to the application, or where the SMS is sent through the application and has to be verified through the authenticator app. There are several ways, but it isn't 1999, text messages aren't the way for national ad global banks to communicate with customers.
I have been more security conscious since getting robbed and even more so, since participating in crypto. If there is a potential payoff abs reward outweighs risk, or desperation or culture reduces the barrier to commit a crime, someone will try. It is very much a supply and demand market, and there is an endless supply of willing criminals, devising new and innovative ways to capture value.
Digital crime has made it even easier in many respects, and harder in others. It want that long ago that mobile phone theft was common, but now that is largely useless. I some places, people were getting murdered for a pair of new sneakers, which probably still happens.
Other than bank robberies, physical theft was largely petty, with relatively low value, because people don't carry that much on them, or store it in their house. But, gaining access to digital assets like a bank account and there is the majority of the liquid wealth and many ways to quickly move it to out of reach places.
Like into crypto.
It isn't crypto's problem it is more secure than a bank, it is a illustration of how poor the banking system is in may cases. The banks should be looking to crypto to improve their performance, but doing so opens them up to the other aspects of crypto, like transparency, which they obviously want to avoid.
However, I do think there will be mounting pressure on financial services to not only become more secure, but be "probably fair" as things like the PwC tax breach will put mounting pressure on the governments to act. But, they will act slowly and a lot will be swept under the rug ad kicked down the road before public pressure is significant enough to drive real change.
At the end of the day, it is the consumer who pays the largest price, no matter what it is. A government screws up, taxes cover the cost. Theft happens, insurance buyers pay more. Debt is raised, the end user pays,one way or another.
While the consumer bears the brunt of the cost, it also means that in the right market system, they also have the mass of the power. We aren't in that system now, we are in one where the supplier has all the power, not the buyer. The consumer is almost powerless at the moment, like kept cows eating only to be milked and then ground into mince.
The problem might be these days that because if technology, the biggest thefts aren't happening to corporations, they are happening to consumers. In the past, when a bank was robbed, it was the bank insurance that covered it, now, they can wash their hands as if they have nothing to do with it. This means that we as consumers end up being the direct target, rather than the custodian, even though we might be powerless to stop the heist. This makes stealing from each other more lucrative, with a reduced risk of being caught and convicted.
At least in the lobby of the hotel, there is a camera watching who comes in and out. But if we are robbed again, who is going to suffer?
The guest. The end user. The consumer.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]