Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:56:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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)
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 afloat somehow--IIRC, the total in the insurance
fund, when combined, was $0.13 per $10,000 of deposits. Thirteen
cents! The next thing the bankers wanted to do was to force a merger
with NCUA (the insurance fund for Credit Unions), which was in very,
very, very good shape because credit unions are by definition rather
conservative--you don't get the huge returns, but neither do you
get the massive failures.
The resulting campaign centered on whether commercial for-profit
banks had the right to benefit from non-profit credit unions' fiscal
responsibility.
Of course, I said no, and wrote many many many letters to this effect--
but the end rationale is somewhat similar to Larry's reasoning: If
you're engaging in risky behaviour, expect to be charged more for
insurance. Fortunately, the merger never took place, but that hasn't
stopped the banking industry from continuing its efforts to destroy
credit unions through government legislation.
Ahem, rant off. :)
best
LFB.nl
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
| (...) You're absolutely spot on. I thought what the banks lobbied to do to the NCUA was the highest degree of larceny and was relieved when it failed. Believe it or not most of my day to day non investment money is in Credit Unions, I am a big fan (...) (24 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
