Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the chasing-last-century's-technology dept.

Businesses 398

mwandaw writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do not 'all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.' After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711142)

ie sucks

People still bank at Chase? (0, Offtopic)

NoBozo99 (836289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711180)

Too bad!

Re:People still bank at Chase? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711274)

Maybe you're too young to have noticed this, but you typically only get to choose a bank (checking account, credit card, mortgage, car loan) for the first couple years. Then there's a merger or your loan gets flipped, and you start getting statements from some other company with different terms and policies (not that you understood the first one's). Then a couple years down the road, there's another merger or your loan gets flipped again.

So, it could be that no-one opts to bank at Chase, but... Chase (Citi, BofA, PNC etc) happens.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711458)

People spend more time figuring out what kind of a vacuum cleaner they are going to buy than thinking about the bank they will put their money into.

There is no competition and the reasons are that government now plans/runs the economy. Chase will have their customers, nobody will be leaving because Chase is going to drop support for a browser. Nobody will be leaving if Chase continues gambling with deposits. Nobody will be leaving even if Chase continues trading any kinds of derivatives.

The reason for this is FDIC, the Fed insuring the deposits, which creates a set of problems:

1. The banks don't have a reason to care about earning customers' trust, they can start gambling with your deposits.
2. The people don't care and don't pay attention where their money is.
3. Competitiveness between banks is no longer that important, this is a problem, small banks start losing out to bigger ones just based on this alone.
4. Large banks do gamble with your money, as they also receive Free Money from the Fed they become bigger and bigger, until they are... "Too Big To Fail" *(a government creation, in reality they are too big to exist at that point.)

FDIC, just like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc., create a moral hazard for everybody - the creditors and the debtors.

Government shouldn't be in insurance business at all, it is terrible at assessing risks, for reference see Ben Bernanke sitting the middle of a huge credit bubble he helped to create and not seeing it at all even while staring right into its face (I am talking about the housing bubble and that guys saying: we don't have a bubble in 2007!

INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? We have so many economists coming on our air saying 'Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy.' Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country? [sourcewatch.org]

BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though. - these are the people who will now, under new Obama's financial reform will be watching for the signs of bad things about to happen? Seriously? Really? You must be kidding me?

Banks must NOT be Federally insured, any insurance must be private and insurers must provide information on the conditions of insurance, the payments etc., so that risk can be evaluated by the banks' customers.

Many will say: but how do you expect an average person to look and understand.... well I guess that's what arithmetic is for.

People NEED competition in banks just like in anything else, otherwise soon enough all banks will be one same too big to fail, only IE is allowed mega-bank, and the problems will not be limited to just what kind of browser the banks allows you to use on their site, that will be the smallest of the problems.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711522)

have you considered for a second that he might have known we were in the middle of a bubble, but not wanted to pop it ? Newsflash: people lie all the time.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711554)

In case of Ben I prefer to keep to the KISS principle and use the Occam's Razor. Just a few days ago the guy said he doesn't understand why gold is rallying. Really, he doesn't, that's what he said.

Maybe he is lying, but I think he is just useless, he is the perfect case that supports Peter Principle, he is stuck within his level of incompetence.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (2, Insightful)

stabiesoft (733417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711528)

Some people do change banks, just not enough. I was very unhappy with BofA's funds availability policy in TX after moving from Cal. I found a bank in TX that had an acceptable policy and I switched. OTOH a friend of mine complains incessantly about wells fargo, but everytime I suggest switching, he says it is too much trouble, which I think is your point:) I keep trying to get him to switch but to no avail.

People need to know that they have options (2, Informative)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711570)

and where to find them. [moveyourmoney.info]

I agree (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711602)

having your money in a large US bank that is only propped up by the Fed, who let them borrow taxpayer money to make their balance sheets is asking for trouble. Now that I am becoming a fan of Chrome, I have another reason not to bother with Chase Bank, even if they continue to chop down forests to get my business.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711514)

you typically only get to choose a bank (checking account, credit card, mortgage, car loan) for the first couple years.

I had this happen with my first bank. Smallish savings and loan, a local bank. At one point they said they were going to start charging for the checking account. I went down and talked with them and they cut me a deal. If I started using electronic statements they'd keep the checking free. There was also a "service charge" on my savings account if I didn't maintain a minimum balance, which went away also. Things stayed that way for some years.

Then the bank merged with a larger bank, and suddenly I started seeing money disappearing out of my savings. Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it, but they were eating about $2/month off it in a service charge. So I called them and they said they'd changed their policies after the merger, and that's how things were going to be now. So picked up all my money and moved it to a local credit union. They take really good care of me.

You'd think things like this would be so destructive to your customer base that they'd have to think twice about it, yet they just do it without batting an eyelash. And so we walk. And they don't seem to care?

Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings. I stopped checking my electronic statements when I closed my checking account. Anyway, got a notice some time later saying my savings account now had a negative balance. So I gave them a call to laugh at them and tell them they could close the account. I was almost expecting them to tell me to come pay the $1.50 or whatever negative on the account, but they didn't have THAT much nerve. Idiots.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711578)

The key is that most people don't walk.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711634)

No the key is the wrong people walk...the people with $50 in a savings account. The guys with $500,000 (i.e. the customers the bank wants) are not subject to the same goofy treatment. The ones who walk are too few and too small to make a dent so the bank doesn't care. The bank (and all their competitors) wants to spend the minimum amount of effort and money possible servicing a small individual account. They have a gazillion of them and it is only profitable in the mass numbers of them giving them capital to invest. Hence they have to be evil enough to drive herds away before it affects them and since most banks are equally evil once they get to the size of bank we're talking about it's pretty much a zero sum game. Now if you have big money it's a different story and the customer service is great. It's the nature of world...get used to it.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711692)

They will not be bothered with people going away if enough people stay. As long as they come up ahead, the change they implemented will be done.

I know of a company who raised their prices for a certain product. Almost all customers for that product left, which was the point as they were not making enough money on it. They were not allowed to end the contract from their side, so when the customer asked to leave, they were 'nice enough' to not hold the customer to his end of the contract.

At another company they made service so bad that customers left, which again was what they wanted.

Companies care about making money, not about how much customers they have (unless that is directly linked to makinging money). That means that they do not want all the customers all the time, just those that make them money. If you don't make them money, they don't want your business.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711694)

That's why I do most of my banking at credit unions. I have yet to be burned in any major way by a credit union. Since members are the only ones that can borrow from them typically and the funds are lent by other members you get an institution that is responsible primarily to the people it does business with, not some random assortment of investors.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711320)

Other than ignorance or pig-headdedness, what's their problem?
My bank supports all of the browsers I have tried, and I suspect they are at least as secure as Chase. In the last few years, I have used one or more versions of Chromium, Epiphany, Firefox, Konqueror, and Opera (on Ubuntu and/or PCLinuxOS). All were compatible with the banking interface.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711332)

They bought out my mortgage, I didn't really have a choice.
Chase sucks.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711396)

That's pretty common. My mortgage was bought by US Bank before I even signed. Anything else?

I'm not implying Chase is awesome, just wondering what problems people are having.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711474)

My credit union, which is part of a not-that-big state university, has supported Firefox on their web site for years. They also support non-alphanumeric characters in your password, but that's a separate rant of mine. If a fairly small credit union can manage this stuff, there's no reason for a giant bank not to be able to.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (5, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711446)

My first credit card was from Chase. It was on one of those flyer boxes posted on a board in one of the dorms. Not the best interest rate at the time but not too bad. They steadily lowered my rate over the years. I'd call them up and ask for a lower rate and they'd see I'd been a customer for awhile and had a good record and would knock a few points off. it finally settled at 9.9 fixed for several years. I used it frequently, but I almost always paid my entire balance. I did buy my first laptop computer on it though, and that took several months to pay off.

Now a lot of people just throw away those "change in terms of service" notices they get from their credit card companies, but *I* read them. And one day I got a notice saying they were going to jack up my interest rate for no apparent reason. So I called them to cancel the card. She transferred me to someone else that said forget about that, we won't raise your rate. (I suppose I was transferred to a "stop this customer from closing their account" rep)

So last year I got another one. This time they were jacking the rate up to something outrageous like 17%. (from 9.9) Called them again and expected to be put through the same transfer, but this rep was having none of that. I explained what had happened last time and she says no, this one is not negotiable. She explained that "due to changing economic circumstances" they had to raise their rate. I asked her to transfer me to an account specialist, but to my surprise, I got exactly the same answer. So I explained to her one more "changing economic circumstance" they were now going to experience.

It's too bad too. They provided me with good service, and even had some really cutting-edge features for the time. Back in 1992 they had an offer for me to email (yes really) a scan (yes, REALLY) of my picture and my signature, and they sent me a new card, with my picture and my signature on the front of the card. (I had to use a serial port quickcam to make the pics) REALLY nice feature, and nice to have a second photo ID and the signature really big on the front of the card. To this day I don't know of any bank that offers that, though there are a few that let you upload a picture and can have that as the entire face of your card. I need to do that with my current main credit card, an AT&T mastercard. (9.9%)

I've heard though that they classify customers like me as "dead beats" because we don't carry a balance for them to charge interest on. I suppose it's possible that's why I got sacked. It's just a shame to have to cancel your first credit card, that helped you establish credit, that you've had for almost 20 years.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711646)

It could just be that their fraud rate is now costing Chase 7.1% more than it was.

My cards are with Chase (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711650)

Well, that's one anecdote. I have the opposite experience. My primary credit card is also the first credit card I ever got. Mine did have a low interest rate. Over the years the card changed hands to two different banks through mergers, and now it's with Chase. Each time the brand logo on my card changed, I was been grandfathered in with the same APR as before. I've been with Chase for a while now, and though it wasn't even by choice, I'm perfectly happy with them as they have never given me anything but good service. They even recently upgraded my card to one of their "premium" products -- while keeping me at the same interest rate, which currently stands at 4.65% (yes, you read that right). And no, I am not anything close to "rich," by any stretch of the imagination.

My guess is that your experience is due to the nature of the product you received from Chase. By "product," I mean card -- not all credit cards are the same, even when issued by the same bank. Different product lines tolerate different terms. For example, I once had a card that had a very poor interest rate, like they were giving you. I called up my bank and said I really couldn't see using this card ever again, given that my other cards offered so much better terms. The lady on the phone looked at my records and said yes, indeed I should qualify for a better rate -- but that unfortunately she couldn't give it to me with this particular card. She recommended I apply for a new card from the same bank, and she could take my application over the phone. I did so and they mailed me out my new card in a week or two, with the interest rate cut in half. I threw the old card away. Of course, which products you qualify for largely depend on your credit score.

Re:People still bank at Chase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711774)

>...It's just a shame to have to cancel your first credit card, that helped you establish credit, that you've had for almost 20 years.

If you have had the card for 20 years, you should NOT cancel the card. Part of your FICO score is dependent on how long you have had credit. Canceling the card will likely hurt your score. Also by now I assume the card has a fairly high credit limit. Another part of your score is related to how much of your available credit that you use.

The best strategy when this kind of thing happens would be to find a new credit card and just use the Chase card to buy something small every couple of months (so they don't cancel you for non-use).

Google will fix it (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711190)

Having their claws in your banking info is a primary directive

Businesses do not understand technology (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711192)

"Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends. Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone, however, as any tech-literate person will tell you, those programs usually are outdated, slow and bloated.

Its quite silly how they don't understand it. In their mind IE = Microsoft = stable. In everyone elses mind IE = Microsoft = Slow/Bloated/Insecure. In their mind Chrome = New = Unstable, in everyone elses mind Chrome = New = Fast.

Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711334)

Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.

Why not? Performance and safety matters for software just like it matters for cars. If you want a fast, efficient, safe car that doesn't have billowing clouds of black smoke coming from the exhaust, then you don't buy a car from 60 years ago. Similarly, if you want a good, reliable, modern browser, you don't use one that's 10 years old.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711402)

Yes, but all those things involve tradeoffs. With browsers there aren't any because the vast majority of them are free (as in beer) and have good community support.

If I buy a 1970/80s car, chances are it will be really cheap. If I buy the newest car the day of release, its going to cost me. Similarly, if I buy my car from ObscureCarMakerOutOfFinland, I'm not going to get very good support, on the other hand, some of the more obscure browsers give the best support and usually the ones not backed up by a company have an open source foundation giving even better abilities to fix it.

With something common, like a Ford, I can go in and buy any part I need easily, with obscure car brands I can't. Its generally the opposite with software.

When it comes down to it, there are no trade offs that are so common with the physical market, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc. give you good browsing experiences with different features with very little drawbacks.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (3, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711654)

SecurityTracker [securitytracker.com] lists 6 pages of security vulnerabilities for Chrome; but 7 pages for IE 6. Chrome would seem to be marginally more secure. In any case a business would be well advised not to pick a fight with Google, or at least pick a fight over a more worthy issue.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (2, Interesting)

d7415 (1068500) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711478)

I agree with your point, but the pedant in me can't resist:

Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone,


Re:Businesses do not understand technology (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711614)

There's a reason for large financial institutions to think like that. Sure, for CNN or ABC, they should support as many browsers as possible, and the newer browsers might be more efficient and better for them. But for a bank - well, a bank isn't going to build their main vault out of some brand new material that hasn't even been tested yet, so why would they do so for browsers? I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation. If something goes wrong and your account is hacked due to a browser bug, they can say "blame Microsoft, they've had _years_ to iron out these bugs". If you're using Chrome and the same thing happens, there's a bit more of a risk to the bank of people saying "Why did you let me use this new and not fully tested browser?"

Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.

Browser Security Acid Test? (2, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711712)

Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.

Sure, but if they can't provide concrete data for choosing one browser over another, then how can you be sure they are making the right choice. I understand their argument, but I have no evidence that they proved these browsers to be unreliable.

What we need is a security acid test, akin to the CSS3 acid test, that is recognized by security and financial institutions, that can be run by browser developers to see whether they meet the mark. If there is one already, was it used and where are the results? If there isn't one, then how can we be sure browsers are being audited in an equal manner? For me the test should be something that any capable security expert could feel comfortable with and include minimum requirements for passing and also "nice to have features" that can give the browser bonus marks.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (2, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711690)

I don't think of stability as one of IE's problems, so if you're trying to make the point that IE is no more or less stable than Chrome or Opera, you've lost me.

On the other hand, Chrome and Opera development are both pretty dynamic, lots of changes, trying to match features of, of all things, IE. Firefox seems to like to break addons, but at least much core functionality seems to survive intact.

Come to think of it, IE6->IE7 was uncomfortable, but IE7->IE8 is a major pain, even for ASP sites. IE6->IE8 is genuinely painful. If your site is IE6-centric, you're facing bigger challenges. Why this is continues to escape me. I know it's because of compatibility problems, but how that lingers is unfortunate. Shouldn't be.

Ack. Now naive. I should go back to Lynx.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711706)

"Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends.

Net Applications tracks 40 browser versions:

IE 8.0 25%
IE 6.0 17%
FFX 3.6 16%
IE 7.0 12%
FFX 3.5 5%
Chrome 4.1 5%
Safari 4%
Opera 10.x 2%
Chrome 5.0 1%

Browser Version Market Share [netmarketshare.com]
These are global webstats, not Chase's internal webstats - there can be a difference and a difference that matters.

However "trend-forward" Opera and Chrome may appear to the geek, they really aren't all that significant in the mass consumer market.

Re:Businesses do not understand technology (4, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711730)

If businesses understood technology, they would be asking for designers to support specific rendering engines. Not browsers which is edging on silly.

The asshats also wouldn't lock out other browsers because there is a chance the untested w3c html may render slighly differently but still be totally useable. Different doesn't mean wrong businessmen. While presentation is important, content is king.

Time Warner Cable (4, Interesting)

Thing I am (761900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711194)

... does the same thing. I got this [] message (today) trying to order service using the latest version of Chrome.

Re:Time Warner Cable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711226)

At least they give you the option to continue anyways. Many sites just lock you out with no questions asked.

Re:Time Warner Cable (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711318)

I find it hilarious that Time Warner Cable is, at least by implication, suggesting that there actually exists a browser in which dealing with them could represent "the best possible shopping experience"...

Re:Time Warner Cable (4, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711612)

I think it's just they're way of saying that if you've got the competence to install Chrome, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying from us.

Verified by Visa (0, Offtopic)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711756)

I've noticed recently that the "Verified by VISA" thing[1] no longer works in Opera. I've tried to use at play.com, eastcoast.co.uk and flybe.com this weekend, and each time had to go back to Firefox.

[1] The thing where an iframe from Visa within a shopping site asks for digits from your password. I.e. exactly what your bank tells you not to do (put your banking password into any other website) must be done. Stupid system.

WebTV (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711204)

You can tell how outdated their thinking is by their inclusion of Web TV. How long has it been since that was even sold?

Re:WebTV (1)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711260)

The last release was "MSN TV2" in 2004. Microsoft now says on the MSN TV (WebTV) site:

Sorry, MSN TV hardware is no longer available for purchase from Microsoft. Microsoft continues to support the subscription service for existing WebTV and MSN TV customers.

Re:WebTV (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711518)

So more than half a fucking decade ago. Got it.

.... oookaaaayy ... (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711224)

not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site

- but they'll still be supporting IE6. Where the hell are they getting their security information from? I can see still supporting it purely because of the sheer numbers of nutbars still using it, but to mention security when talking about any other browser?

Re:.... oookaaaayy ... (3, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711342)

"Where the hell are they getting their security information from?" Recent Business School Product.

Re:.... oookaaaayy ... (3, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711768)

This has nothing to do with them thinking IE6 is secure, or that Chrome is evil. It is simply easier to continue offering support for the browser that your web site was built for compatibility with. It would cost them money to revisit their web site HTML etc. to make sure it actually works with standards compliant browsers (CSS box model anyone?) or even just to check that it works well enough. How could they afford their executive bonuses if they spend money on servicing customers?

Three words.... (5, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711234)

User Agent Switcher.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Three words.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711288)

Eight words: "Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera .

Re:Three words.... (4, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711404)

Opera has this built in, and Chrome has an extension which both do the same thing.

Re:Three words.... (1)

matazar (1104563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711418)

To be fair, while the OP clearly has reading issues, he's right (if you ignore his link).
You can easily change your user-agent in Opera and I would assume Chrome would be the same.

Re:Three words.... (4, Insightful)

maugle (1369813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711536)

You can easily change your user-agent in Opera and I would assume Chrome would be the same.

But you shouldn't, because then they'll never support Opera or Chrome "because none of their customers use it".
Firefox didn't start getting support from big websites because of people changing its user-agent to IE.

Re:Three words.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711788)

Quite. Instead you should do the exact opposite!

If you're using Firefox download the extension and pretend you're using Chrome/Opera on their site.

That'll fuck with them.

Re:Three words.... (3, Interesting)

ya really (1257084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711328)

How exactly is a firefox addon useful when they said they're supporting FireFox, but not Chrome or Opera?

Re:Three words.... (1)

csrjjsmp (819838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711452)

Well, Opera has that function built in.

Re:Three words.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711378)

Cancel Your Account

Three letters.... (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711442)


Re:Three words.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711462)

For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/aafciojnlamllgpkpdkbamkfgbofhgcj

Re:Three words.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711636)

As the author notes, this extension doesn't forge HTTP headers, which is what most websites use to detect browser versions. You have to start Chrome with a custom cmdline option to do that. Or you can use one of Chrome's IETab extensions. But TBH, both IETab extensions suck.

Re:Three words.... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711596)

People still use the browser agent for detection? Weird. Most times I see something along the lines of a XMLHTTP object creation to determine the browser.

Frankly, if the site doesn't support your browser, lying to it wont get it to magically work. AJAX etc are handled differently on different browsers.

Re:Three words.... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711606)

No. What needs to change is NOT the agent ID. What needs to change is the perception of the companies.

If all people would use the Agent Switcher, then websites would say: Hey, everybody is using SomeRandomBrowser, why don't we just make sites that are only accessible for that browser?

What they should learn is to make sites that are made following standards. Then the browser makers must follow those standards or loose people using them.

ie6 supported (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711238)

Brain dead.

How #$@#$ hard is it? (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711254)

Why are some browsers not supported? There are two primary reasons--security and popularity. There are dozens of browsers in use today, but not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site. The security of your accounts and private information is one of our highest priorities and some browsers, especially older versions, are simply higher security risks to use with our site. As for popularity, we continually monitor the types of browsers that customers use to access our site. Based on that information, we know that supported browsers are used by more than 95% of our customers. If a new browser begins to grow in popularity, we will assess and test its security and performance with our site to determine whether or not we should support its use.

Right... Because its sooooo hard to use standards and make a secure site? Lets face it, if you code things right you can support every single browser except for perhaps IE (though they have gotten better). It is pure stupidity not to support various other browsers because they "aren't secure" when you can't give a reason other than they aren't used as much.

The vast majority of security for banking comes from 3 main places. Encryption (controlled by the site owners), Physical/Software security of the servers (controlled by the sites owners) and elimination of flaws in the browser (judging by their inclusion of IE 6... they aren't worried about this).

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711354)

There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else.

I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (3, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711506)

There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else. I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...

More like a battle that they can't possibly win. There's no way for a bank website to prevent stupid users of any operating system from installing keyloggers.

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711576)

Completely impossible to win all the time; but a chat with an A/V vendor or botnet research outfit could probably get you a reasonably accurate rundown of "Percentage of systems compromised, by OS and version". From there, you could present the "zOMG Upgrade!" screen to users of any platform whose numbers fell above your acceptable risk threshold.

It would be an even more thankless task than bugging people about their browser version, which is why they aren't doing it; but you could probably cut down on risk considerably.

While, in theory, no OS is fully safe from user cluelessness, I'd wager that, for instance, XP users who aren't even on the current service pack are probably very bad bets (or heavily controlled appendages of some corporate IT department), while people who are at least fully up to wherever dutifully running their platform's auto-updater would put them are rather safer.

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711740)

Well, a few things come to mind to mitigate attacks by keyloggers:
- the OS could disallow normal users to install keyloggers
- the bank could use a separate authentication device (and additionally transaction based security)

These don't completely stop MitM attacks, but they make them much harder.

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711798)

They can try though. My bank asks for characters from my password, and each time they ask for different characters in a different order (e.g. the 4th, 1st and 9th). They then ask for two numbers from a PIN, and I input that using a drop-down box.

A competing bank uses the chip on the debit card to authenticate logging in, mine only uses the chip for authorising a transaction. (Using one of these [silicon.com] ) Either way, you input a one-use-only number into the bank website.

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711416)

Alternatively they could just use a type of banking, that doesn't rely on any kind of software on the user's system. My Swedish bank uses a smart-card-reader and the chip on my card for challenge response.

While I haven't tested it, I wouldn't be surprised if the website and all transactions would work in Lynx - only iffy thing there is the CSS used, but even then. Hell, it should work on any kind of web-enabled device, from Windows to OS X to obscure OSes, to phones, to toasters to Bluray players.

Then you're essentially only looking at MitM-attacks, as even key-loggers on the user's terminal is only going to net you the user ID and challenge and response codes, and if the system is well made (which I believe it is), then that's not going to help you one bit.

Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711562)

Chase is a pain in the ass when it comes to security. They encourage things that are counter to strong security. One example is supporting IE6 and up. Another is that I have Firefox set to erase cookies/history on close - but Chase doesn't like this. "We don't recognize your computer, please input the code we just sent to your cell phone". I.e. they encourage me to tone down my security settings to avoid this. Worse still, they don't even apply this consistently. Sometimes their systems won't care if I'm logging in from a new system or one where I've wiped all the cookies etc., other times they will. So then why care at all? I guess they want to provide an illusion of security by challenging sometimes but trying not to infuriate people.

These are just a couple of examples.

As a mac user (3, Insightful)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711276)

A few years ago, before Firefox and Safari had any market share I used to find from time to time websites requiring me to use IE. Since it was not possible at the time (IE had not been updated for Apple in a few years) you know what happened? I did not use their service and I did not miss it, I just used a competitor who allowed me to use my browser. Didn't matter if it was a back of a brokerage account, or a Japanese tee shirt shop (whatever). Now I never encounter that kind of message anymore. Is this a positive example of free market? I am not sure, but it might be!

Not "positive" example (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711352)

This isn't a positive example of the free market because it is a net negative for the net as a whole. Yes, the free market working on perhaps its last stronghold that keeps on getting eroded is a good thing, but why was IE not being used? Because it was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, that it didn't support hardly any technology, it was a pain to code for, etc.

The only reason why this has happened is because IE for a time was complete crap. Yes, it has resulted in benefits for some of us, but it means that many people have been and are using browsers that can be easily exploited into spewing DDoS attacks and spam (Does anyone still get spam anymore? I think I've had a grand total of like 4 messages since I started using Gmail) and all kinds of malware.

So, while it is nice that it opened up competition in the browser market, it was a net loss for the internet as a whole.

Re:As a mac user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711358)

Nice theory, but for various reasons, and as has already been noted by others posting to this thread, many people don't necessarily have a completely free choice when it comes to which bank(s) they do business with.

Hmmph... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711280)

I can understand the "popularity" argument, though it certainly does tend to coddle poor design practices, the fewer browsers they have to check for correct rendering on the cheaper their web development will be.

I find the "security" one much harder to understand(unless, as is quite likely, it is just being used cynically to make a purely cost-based decision sound more urgent). From a security perspective, things like IE6 and FF2.0 are seriously retro; but supported, which makes it seem quite unlikely that they are making the "security" decision based on the presence/absence of some specific feature(e.g. specific SSL/TLS ciphers, "anti-phishing filters", XSS countermeasures, etc.). Further, the "Safari 3.0 or higher (Mac Only)" thing seems downright inscrutable from a security perspective, and not much clearer from a web-design perspective. Is Safari version X on Windows really that drastically different? And is Chrome all that different, in terms of the rendering features that you would need to present a bunch of numbers, some fine print about fees, and clip-art of smiling families?

Ban Windows if concerned about security (0, Troll)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711296)

Considering the Windows malware that is emptying bank accounts, you have to ban Windows if serious about security. If not banning Windows, they should create a Chase-branded native Windows software client for their customers to use so they don't use a browser at all.

Safari support is important because many Windows users do their online banking with their iPod or iPhone because it's exponentially safer than Windows, and because Mac users are extremely trouble-free clients. But they should simply support WebKit to also get Chrome and the other smartphones.

The key takeaway from the IE9 preview is that the Internet Explorer platform is dead. If you support WebKit plus IE6-IE8 then you'll very likely be including IE9 as if it is a WebKit browser since they are making a WebKit-alike so they can reboot their mobile platform.

Overall I think the best strategy is to be aggressive with HTML5, including fallbacks so that you have one site you're focusing on, that can run in any HTML5 browser and fallback gracefully to the old browsers, then be aggressive about getting your clients to upgrade and about communicating whatever problems you have to W3C and the browser vendors. The way out is through.

Re:Ban Windows if concerned about security (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711480)

If not banning Windows, they should create a Chase-branded native Windows software client for their customers to use so they don't use a browser at all.

Or send out OS boot cds :)

As a Chromium Developer... (3, Interesting)

Mabbo (1337229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711322)

... I can say it's pretty short sighted of them. What do they plan to tell the people who buy Chrome OS Netbooks [theregister.co.uk] in the near future? Sorry, you can't use our bank? I'm sure both Google and various hardware vendors who offer such devices will have a few words to say to Chase Bank.

Re:As a Chromium Developer... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711432)

What do they plan to tell the people who buy Chrome OS Netbooks in the near future?

You may not remember this, but back when Firefox was the new kid on the block, you could only get to most banking sites with IE. Once they started to see an increase in Firefox usage in their logs, they probably then decided to start to allow it. Same with Safari.

And the same will go for Chrome (I sincerely doubt Opera will be included in the list). Contrary to popular slashdot thinking, most people don't use Chrome or consider it a "rising star". It's in the same league as Linux. They might know about it or have heard about it, but that's about as far as it goes.

Most people use what's already on their machine.

Typical wrong conclusion (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711350)

'...not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.'

Yeah, if you've made a site and it doesn't look in both Chrome and Opera, there must be a problem with those browsers. I'm sure they paid a lot of money to get their site developed, so there can't be anything wrong with that.

Re:Typical wrong conclusion (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711524)

Their insistence on supporting IE 6.0 is odd considering Microsoft itself is winding down support for it. I know I've heard/read anecdotal evidence that a lot of users are still using it; to that I say 1) They need to move on, & 2) I personally don't know anyone still using it. If you buy a new system your getting Windows 7 (whether you want it or not), and I'm not even sure how you'd begin to back grade IE; so the majority of those users must not have installed or updated their Windows installs in... 5-6 years?

Let me translate that (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711356)

"We paid Vice President McNepotista's retarded cousin Benny six hojillion greenbacks to lash up a flaky site in Front Page, and if we had to acknowledge that our crappy site doesn't render in most standards compliant browsers, we might not feel like such virile corporate stallions tonight while we're snorting coke out of a hooker's ass crack."

"Or Higher" (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711360)

What is all the "outdated" commentary in the article, and the bemoaning of IE6. The text, typed or pasted by the very poster, lists IE6, Safari 30. and Firefox 2.0, each decorated with the words "or higher".

Those two words largely eliminate fully half the posed and inferred questions about IE6 being out of date and the whole list being backwards or whatever.

My unleaded gas is for use with a 1975 automobile or later. This doesn't make it unfit for my 2006 prius.

Someone in the editorial department needs to go listen to Monty Python's Logician sketch. It's called the _partial_ conversion of a logical statement.

Re:"Or Higher" (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711496)

The point of most of these posts' IE6-related comments apparently is that, if the other browsers aren't considered sufficiently secure, there's no way in hell that IE6 could be.

Re:"Or Higher" (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711508)

> What is all the "outdated" commentary in the article, and the bemoaning of
> IE6.

The point is that if they actually cared about security they would specifically block IE6.

Chrome (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711384)

I use Chrome and sometimes Opera for security. I will not do internet banking with anything else other than Chrome or the browser on my Android phone. Firefox, as much as I love it, has become outdated slow and bloated. It's also very popular, meaning it's under attack (indeed have witnessed more and more malware getting through firefox - it's no longer the automatic cure for malware magnet users) although flaws are fixed so fast it makes your head spin, in reality it's always been unpatched browsers that have been the risk.

I uh, was also under the impression Chrome has some pretty heavy duty security features and built in anti-phishing support. To the point that it embarasses the competition who are playing catch up. If anything banks should be strongly encouraging people install these browsers.

Wrong reading (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711420)

They promote the use of IE6 instead of Chrome or Opera to decrease security... probably they will kick people usiing updated flash players and recent firefox.

If well Hanlon's always take precedence, by now a variation of Clarke's law should be applied: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

Here's what they should do (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711430)

The banks should issue a write protected USB stick with it's own connection manager and browser on it. An "almost live" OS.

+1 Troll article (5, Insightful)

MagicM (85041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711434)

Nothing in the linked page says that they're going to lock out "unsupported" browsers.

If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser.

Essentially they're saying that the site may not perform per specification in browsers that they do not test with because they're only used by less than 5% of their users. This is nothing other than a "we didn't test, so don't expect it to work" disclaimer. Nobody is getting locked out and nobody is discriminated against. The site's developers are simply cutting some corners to save costs. Business as usual.

Y'all are posting in a troll thread.

Chase blows (1)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711436)

Fuck Chase...I had Wamu before they were swallowed by Chase, and Wamu's website was FAR superior to the ancient web banking that Chase offers. I have to click through 5 screens just to transfer money across accounts with chase, and I doubt they're not using anything more sophisticated than plain https, so any BS reason they offer for not supporting certain modern browsers is just that...BS.

I work at Chase (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711448)

The reason that IE6 is included is because it's currently installed as the only browser on 140,000 Chase employee workstations, laptops, etc. If IE6 was blocked then Chase employees would be unable to bank with Chase from the office.

Re:I work at Chase (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711628)

One thing that corporate overlords like about IE6 is that it breaks sites like facebook, youtube, etc that the PHB's don't want their wage serfs looking at while on duty.

Re:I work at Chase (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711670)

Hmm, that sounds like a compelling reason for me to continue not doing business with them. That's really not a valid excuse. IE6 isn't secure, while if you can sequester it to an internal LAN and keep it from the net you approach security, there's really no excuse for forcing that on other people. There's just way too many portable web browsers to choose from, Chrome, Firefox and Iron to name basically two, plus I'm sure that most other major browsers are available as such as well. Plus if you do it right, it's a lot easier to push updated images than it is for integrated software.

People will think Chase is slow (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711456)

The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE, and it's stable. The first thing I noticed was that Facebook didn't work well in IE. I got sick of Facebook, and stopped using Chrome for a while. Then I noticed that a couple sites I use a lot both work reliably in Chrome. I had been blaming those sites for having bad scripts. Nope. It's IE.

Now, perhaps this is because I went through my IE settings and turned off anything that I thought might make me vulnerable. I don't run AV, so I tend to go through all the security tweaks for IE.

Maybe, just maybe, if I set IE back to defaults it would work OK with the aforementioned sites. I won't do that. So many MS problems are due to insecure default settings, almost as much as the software itself.

So. There's Chrome, it works on these sites, so I use it. Many people sitting behind PCs won't try alternative browsers. They'll just think the site is slow or unreliable.

I don't know what MS is doing with IE. Maybe they're too distracted with smartphones and Bing. Maybe Google's brain power, revenue, and "momentum" is just crushing MS in the browser space. Whatever it is, the failure of IE is now painfully obvious, not just from a security standpoint; but useability. To reiterate, I suspect the scripting engine, since the sites where I've observed problems tend seem to be fairly script intensive. Anything that processes AJAX requests is twice as fast, or faster in Chrome. IE sometimes "forgets" drop-down settings or refuses to take input. Chrome just works.

Opera's scripting engine is faster than Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32711618)

"The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE" - by istartedi (132515) on Sunday June 27, @06:02PM (#32711456)

See the results there for what's stated in my subject-line above, it's VERY CURRENT (this week in fact):

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/06/23/html5-native-third-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx [msdn.com]

("Read 'em & weep"... & that's ONLY OPERA's BETA CODE FOR THEIR NEXT RELEASE mind you - it's only going to be faster once it's OUT OF BETA (once excessive err traps &/or debug stuff is outta it's codebase))

So - For SPEED?

Opera leads there, & for the LONGEST TIME also, plus on most ALL FRONTS for things "web" (scripting AND std. HTML work)... here are some evidences of that, over time:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html [howtocreate.co.uk]


http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cnetuk/crave/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]


http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ [nontroppo.org]

(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))


P.S.=> On the note of security as well, in favor of Opera? It's usually always listed with ZERO known security vulnerabilities over @ SECUNIA.COM also (here are today's results on that note in fact):


http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 31% (4 of 13 Secunia advisories)



http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=statistics [secunia.com]

Unpatched 9% (1 of 11 Secunia advisories)



http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30134/ [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 2 Secunia advisories)



http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/?task=statistics [secunia.com]

Unpatched 0% (0 of 7 Secunia advisories)


(Once more/again, albeit on the note of security vs. speed above: "Read 'em & weep"...)

Opera ROCKS, period (or, do the stats above make me a liar? I think not...)! Opera shows less security vulnerabilities in current builds than FF does (& less than IE, & IE still has known security issues).

Plus, Opera's been able to pass the "ACID TESTS" (ACID2 specfically) for compliance to web-based standards since version 6.x iirc, & it was (iirc) actually the FIRST BROWSER (not development kit) to do so, but when counting dev kits, it was 2nd... correct me if I am "off" here on this last point though, guys, & thanks.


P.S.-> Opera has a BIG "share-of-market" on MOBILE DEVICES as well, & is big in EUROPE (though stats don't tend to show it, because like many others, I tend to "IDENTIFY AS IE" in Opera, so I get somewhat better "IE based" page renderings on SOME sites (this happens, too bad) & that's something others seem to overlook QUITE A BIT too)...

Once more, imo @ least? Well - Opera's great!

I.E.-> It took me away from being a FireFox user primarily in fact, because of it (& FF + IE have copied Opera's features RAMPANTLY over time (e.g.-> Tabbed Browsing anyone? As far as ADDONS also?? Heh, a LOT of what FF has in browser addons, Opera already has natively (minus the CPU usage + speed hits & security vulnerabilities that webbrowser addons introduce (more than potentially too, ala Greasemonkey having that before (as only 1 single example)))...


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/ [theregister.co.uk]

"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."


Nuff said, on the subject of which browser even the "hacker/cracker/security researcher types" use, & why (security-by-obscurity, @ THE VERY LEAST)...

That's on security though, sooo, I am ADMITTEDLY "meandering" a bit here (deviating from the subject of SHEER SPEED alone (had to though, Opera's that good))... apk

As a member of the IT department... (5, Interesting)

WRX SKy (1118003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711464)

... for a Fortune 50 company that received flack for something similar, I can assure it's not a safety thing so much as it is a laziness thing. The internal standard is IE6, therefore most developers have it on their machine and develop/test against it. To officially add support for other browsers would require QA to have all of the browser/machine combo's and likewise for development.

Use standards and you won't have that problem? Wrong, because MS doesn't follow the standards. Which means that we end up writing two versions (minimum) - one for standards compliant and one for IE.

Use a javascript package to make IE compliant? Can't. Corporate architecture doesn't allow us to use open source or third party libraries.

End of the day... it's laziness, not security.

Re:As a member of the IT department... (3, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711664)

So you don't support IE7 and IE8 either, then? Because speaking as a developer at a different company, we have to specifically test each of those separately anyhow. And Firefox, of course. And Safari.

So what you're really saying is that it's too hard to support 3 versions of IE and Firefox and Safari AND Chrome and Opera as well.

Since Chrome is Webkit, just like Safari, it seems to me you should probably go ahead and support that one. And if your app works on Firefox and Safari without any hacks, it'll run on Opera as well.

And like it or not, Chrome is taking market share from IE and Firefox. We are rapidly approaching a market that doesn't have 1 dominant browser, and you'll have to support them anyhow. Giving up now is letting go of things you'll need right before they become critical.

I feel we need a car analogy, so it's like going from a single car on the highways to having many companies making many cars, but paving your roads to only work for that single car.

Re:As a member of the IT department... (1)

WRX SKy (1118003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711680)

I'm with you - I think it's stupid we do things this way... but I'm just a lowly analyst that no one listens to.

Like I said, it's laziness and nothing more.

Re:As a member of the IT department... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711678)

This is a tough one, normally I'd say that making the bank accountable for breaches would be the prescription, but in this case, technically Chase is just enabling stupid behavior.

Really? (5, Insightful)

R3dL3d (1072474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711490)

As I once wrote to my bank: "I'll switch banks before I switch browsers".

Re:Really? (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711674)

sorry, but that's a pretty easy claim to disregard. Just like the droves of people who claimed that they would move in Bush Jr was re-elected or Obama was elected. If I were a business I wouldn't bother with a handful of my total customer base making these claims because I know that, when push comes to shove, nearly no one ever follows through on these kinds of promises. You may be the exception, more power to you if you are, but it's still easy to shrug it off.

Re:Really? (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711786)

That's suppose to be "move if"... Sorry.

it all began (1)

Major Downtime (1840554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711574)

JP Morgan IT staff: "These outdated browsers aren't secure!"
JP Morgan Financial Guru: "We're going to make a fortune on securitizing these browsers! Start the rumor, tell 'em we're dropping everything we've got!"

Well (2, Funny)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32711794)

Considering Chase was one of the few that played recklessly with our money, I guess I wouldn't have to worry about their insecure system anyway because I wouldn't give them my money if they were the last bank in America. Instead it will be the First National Bank of My Mattress.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?