| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Jennifer L. Boger writes:
> > A combination of things... first, by then there will be more things in
> > place that will matter more; second, the pw validator will very likely be
> > less stringent; third, I predict that within the next nine months, a major
> > online banking site such as PayPal will have a major fiasco in the news with
> > tens or hundreds of thousands of user accounts having been either cracked
> > via a distributed stealth parallel cracking system or DoS'd through a
> > distributed and carefully orchestrated DoS attack based on the principle • that
> > they lock someone of their account out if a small number of multiple login
> > attempts fail rather than having more stringent pw requirements and allowing
> > a larger number of fails.
>
> ahh.... at least they have that one little thing that means so much to
> me... FDIC insured. :)
Is this debate flamebait? Or sarcasm
The FDIC needs to do risk based underwriting instead of charging all banks the
same rates. Online banks with lax security should have to pay higher premiums.
FUT .debate if you must (seems blazingly obvious to this libertarian that if
we MUST have an FDIC it should at least try to mimic market forces)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
| (...) with (...) allowing (...) I'm not surprised you take that tack, and I agree although from a different POV. Does anyone remember FSLIC? When the Savings and Loan mess broke, the insuring agency (FSLIC) was merged with FDIC to keep the insurance (...) (24 years ago, 28-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
