Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisSD | Hacker News Reader

I do wonder about some of the new digital banks. For example, Atom Bank PLC requires all banking be done via smartphone. I'd not be comfortable doing banking on my smartphone but even if I was their Terms and Conditions make me nervous[0].

It's the usual stuff about the customer being responsible for everything and they can change the terms at any time without option to accept or reject them. But beyond that it also appears to say that you're responsible for using a smartphone that supports their app. Given they can drop support for a device at any time, this has the potential to lock you out until you get a new phone.

I'm also not sure about their use of biometrics for security. I wouldn't use an ordinary front facing camera to unlock my phone so why would I use it to secure my bank account?

[0] https://www.atombank.co.uk/application-terms-and-conditions

View on HN

You should see the Revolut (they are applying to become a bank) terms.

Mind-boggling stuff like you being responsible for their bugs:

> 24.14. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Revolut is not liable, and you agree not to hold it responsible, for any damages or losses (including, but not limited to, loss of money, goodwill, or reputation, profits, or other intangible losses or any special, indirect, or consequential damages) resulting directly or indirectly from:

> glitches, bugs, errors, or inaccuracies of any kind in the Revolut Services;

> 17.2. If for any reason (including, but not limited to, any technical errors on our behalf or on behalf of our third-party providers) you have a negative balance in your Revolut Electronic Money Account, you agree to immediately Top-Up the required amount to correct the negative balance, such amounts being due without the need for previous notification. If you fail to do so:

Banks are notorious for their terms, but this is taking it to a new level. Move fast, break things, and don't be responsible.

To be fair, I'm not sure how enforceable these clauses are, I find it hard to believe that a judge would side with them if a customer's money suddenly vanish.

It doesn’t have to be this way - e.g. https://monzo.com/terms/

Disclaimer: I work for Monzo

Hey there!

Do you guys have some Scala in your code base ? or do you strictly use Go?

We have just one Scala service - it's not a language we use day to day.

We're almost entirely Go, but do use other languages where it makes sense to - usually because there's a useful library, or great tooling / community for a particular use case. For example we have a handful of Python services for ML.

The terms are quite interesting, but the key part there is "To the extent permitted by applicable law". In EU (and UK, where Revolut is based) consumer rights in general and also for financial services are mainly set in law (which is being pushed in consumers favor with various acts e.g. the payment services directives). The terms of all financial institutions pretty much reflect the minimum required by law, so the actual terms are essentially the same for everyone - if they're worse than the law, then they're null and void; and if they're better than the law... well, that doesn't happen.

The idea is to put a barrier in front of any complaints. Complainants have to actually go to someone who can use the law, while the bank hides behind their Terms & Conditions.

The FCA are very consumer conscious - look at the threats of significant fines towards TSB for just a few days of their app and website being offline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com