All Top Banking

Hackers Hold Banks "Strictly and Indirectly" Liable

Posted by John B. Frank Friday, May 22, 2009

Source: Korea Times
Complete item: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/05/123_45312.html

Though it did not catch the attention of many people, something very interesting is happening in the world of Korean Internet transactions. In April 2006 when the Electronic Financial Transaction Act (EFTA) was promulgated, it was at the
center of controversy as banks were burdened with the precautions against the wrongdoings of hackers.

Since the contents of the EFTA are focused mostly on who will be held liable (Article 9) if there are any problems while engaged in electronic financial transactions, legislators of the EFTA worked with the presumption that there will be hacker attacks and concentrated mostly on how to protect consumers.

Although supporters of the EFTA argue that financial Internet service providers are in a better position than general participants of the electronic financial transaction, it remains questionable and leaves much room to be rectified at least in the eyes of U.S.-trained lawyers like me. In the traditional jurisprudence of law and equity, is it fair and just to hold the
financial Internet service providers (FISPs, mostly banks) strictly liable even without faults to be indirectly liable for any attacks from hackers?

Now since there is a move to amend the EFTA, though it is still not certain yet as to whether the banks will become less burdened after the amendment, I believe it is the right timing to revisit the EFTA almost three years after its debut.

The key issue about the EFTA is that the FISPs, mostly banks, in Korea under the act are ``strictly liable'' by ``vicarious rule'' in Internet  transactions. Of course there are some exceptions in the law for a few minor cases when the banks will be off the hook by proving the contributory negligence by its clients, for example when there is malice or gross negligence by the clients. The whole controversy can be boiled down to two questions:
1. Is t fair and right to hold the FISPs strictly liable for all the wrongdoings of
electronic financial transactions?
2. Will the strict vicarious liability for the FISPs by the EFTA detect and prevent all the wrongdoings of electronic financial transactions?

Continue Reading at Korea Times





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

0 comments

Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Our Manufacturing Facility

Learn More About Us

Find out how our patented technology can empower your financial institution.

Our secure two-factor online banking authentication eliminates dangerous passwords and usernames and replicates the same trusted process used to access cash at ATM's. (Insert Bank Issued Card, Enter Bank Issued PIN)

There is an R.O.I. as FI's also earn recurring revenue from each transaction conducted using our PCI 2.0 Certified PIN Entry Device. Our technology also provides a unique real-time P2P "Instant-Transfer" which allows your online banking customer to transfer cash from ANY of their bankcards to ANY other bankcard...with the Swipe of a card.

Help your bank eliminate phishing and your customers avoid identity theft by providing them with the ability to stop typing and start swiping. There is no safer way to conduct financial transactions online than by 3DES DUKPT encrypting the cardholder details, which we do at the mag-head "inside the box/outside the browser."

Total Pageviews

SLIM for PC or SmartPhone

SLIM for PC or SmartPhone
Click to Inquire

Chip and PIN eCommerce and Mobile

Chip and PIN eCommerce and Mobile
Click to Inquire

Kapersky Calls for Mass Adoption of Card Readers

Kapersky Calls for Mass Adoption of Card Readers

Translate This Blog

BobCaps

Search ePayment News (example: NFC)

About Me

My photo
Named one of the best Payment Industry News Blogs 4 Years Running

Feedjit

My Zimbio