ATMs are secure because banks would lose money if they weren’t. Not because of regulation.
Regulation leads to a bare minimum of safety, not a best-in-class security.
One thing banana-republics all have in common is nationalized voting commissions. Doesn’t turn out as well as the author here suggests.
Do you really feel like banking and medical records are being kept secure? If so I envy your confidence.
Compare that to the way our messages are being encrypted these days (iMessage comes to mind) and i think we’d find the regulation to be lacking.
The incentive provided by regulations (I.e. jail time or fines) doesn’t compare to incentives derived from competition, or (heaven forbid) profit.
It’s, for better or for worse, human nature.
Banking is heavely regulated. I agree that security is good business practice. But, to disregard regulations without proof is a big leap of faith.
Banking have survived thanks to government intervention. And to start with got itself in a mess because Great Depression era regulations where removed.
Now that's wishful thinking. Do you know how hard it is to get your money back from fraudulent transactions caused by compromised ATMs (card skimmers etc - the kinda thing Krebs routinely writes about)?
The banks don't lose their money, they lose your money, and good luck proving this in many countries around the world including the US, UK, Europe.