Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wonderpup

Why Your Bank Account Will Never Be Really Secure

Recommended Posts

No- not another rant on the evils of bail ins- but a thought that struck me today as I was nervously moving money around via the wonders of the Interweb.

The solution to my anxiety is of course an encryption so perfect that my accounts would be impossible to hack- but then I realized that even if such a perfect encryption were to be created- and perhaps one already has been created- it would never see the light of day.

And the reason is simple- the powers that be cannot allow such a thing to exist- if it did then the Internet-currently so wonderfully transparent to those with the ability to make it so- would be rendered totally opaque- they would be blind.

So the current fragile security status of your digitally stored money is in fact vital to national security- exposure to potential hacking is not in fact a bug, it's a feature. :lol:

The fact is that a truly secure and unhackable internet would put the security services out of business- or at least render them functionally crippled.

So your bank account will never really be totally safe from hackers because the most prolific hackers of all don't want it to be- they need it just the way it is.

Time for one of these I think :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you've set a new personal best for "uniformed twaddle", impressive given the level of previous performance.

But, go on then, explain to us all how "the powers that be" can stop anyone anywhere in the world from writing their own encryption program and distributing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the reasons for keeping one's bank balance at zero and stuffing the mattress with fivers and sovereigns (not as comfortable), the OP is the most barking to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did computing an uni, and one module was on encryption - we we're told that any encryption algorithm must be surrendered to the government if requested. Not sure if true, but I suspect it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the reasons for keeping one's bank balance at zero and stuffing the mattress with fivers and sovereigns (not as comfortable), the OP is the most barking to date.

Not necessarily...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10979929/Build-a-government-database-of-individuals-wealth-says-senior-Tory.html

Mark Hoban, Tory MP and former financial secretary, has said the Government should create a database in which comprehensive details of individuals' total wealth would be listed.

The data stored would include savings, investments, private and state pension entitlements and even their homes and other property they owned, he has suggested.

Without going into detail, Mr Hoban implied banks, insurers and other firms would share information about their customers' holdings with a centralised, Government-controlled register.

Mr Hoban outlined the idea in a speech to savings industry executives and in an interview in the Financial Times. It came as he discussed the "Retirement Saver Service", which will be set up to help savers make best use of their pensions.

He told the FT: "It would be great if we could use the Retirement Saver Service to store data on savings, pensions – state and private – and housing."

His suggestion was that this would help individuals form a comprehensive picture of their total worth, because "the fragmentation of information makes it harder for people to get a clear picture of their savings and future savings needs".

Campaigners have quickly warned about the impracticalities and potential risks of such as scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is secure. Everything has risk.

Keeping your money under the mattress ensures other types of risks at least in bank and it gets hacked there's a good chance someone will replace the binary digits stating you have money. If someone takes it from under the mattress I'm guessing you'll get zero back as the house insurance won't pay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous encryption algorithms you can choose from which are so far beyond breakable that no sane person would even waste their time trying.

The problem with security is not with encryption technology, but the things that interact with it; humans, governments, imperfectly designed or built machines or programs; and to a lesser extent these days, people that think they can design encryption algorithms (which is actually very difficult, and there have been some spectacular failures where non-experts have designed specific encryption algorithms - e.g. Wifi WEP, Keeloq "anti-code grab" car remote locking fobs, MIFARE contactless payment cards such as TFL Oyster).

If you really think encryption is the answer, then look at bitcoins. Encryption isn't the problem. It's scammers, social engineering, fraud, incompetence, weird unknown bugs in other software (e.g. a bug in android led to thousands of bitcoins being stolen, etc.

The encryption in chip-and-PIN cards is extremely secure, and provides strong proof that a card was present at the time of a transaction. However, when Police officer June Badger noticed phantom cash withdrawrals on her bank account, and reported them to her bank, she was the one arrested. She would have been convicted too, had it not been for a the an expert for the defence noticing that the proof that the card was present contained every piece of digital data you could imaging, except the digital signature generated by the chip. When this was pointed out at trial, the bank couldn't find the digital signatures and couldn't explain why they were unable to do so. Even security experts at the banks are unable to understand the systems which they themselves have put in place. The encryption worked, but the bank staff and lawyers didn't know how to use it. As a result an innocent party was arrested, sacked from their job and dragged through a criminal trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you've set a new personal best for "uniformed twaddle", impressive given the level of previous performance.

But, go on then, explain to us all how "the powers that be" can stop anyone anywhere in the world from writing their own encryption program and distributing it.

They can't of course- but how would you go about implementing this encryption into your banks systems? Would you turn up at your local branch with a memory stick and a broad grin asking if they would mind giving you access so that you could install it?

You need to read what I wrote- not respond to what you think I wrote.

My point is not that such encryption could not be created-I actually said it may already have been created- my point is that it would not be implemented because a totally secure Internet is not in the interests of the PTB- so even if it were technically possible it will not be done.

The paradox is this- a totally secure online environment is not in the interests of the security agencies since it would leave them blind- they need an online environment that is less than opaque so that they might penetrate organised attempts to subvert the prevailing order.

So even if it were technically possible to secure all online traffic rendering it impossible to hack this will never be implemented at the official level.

This is why your bank account will never really be secure- it's not in the interests of the PTB to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you've set a new personal best for "uniformed twaddle", impressive given the level of previous performance.

But, go on then, explain to us all how "the powers that be" can stop anyone anywhere in the world from writing their own encryption program and distributing it.

"uninformed" sums up your post pretty well.

When the 'authorities' undermine privacy via subverting encryption, they also compromise the security of bank accounts.

Putting back doors and flaws into network systems, OSes and encryption algorithms makes everyone less secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to understand that NOTHING on a computer, particularly a networked computed, is EVER safe. No matter how much encryption you do.

This is why the Kremlin and Germany government departments now put all their most secret documents on real paper - typed out on an old-fashioned type writer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free, open source encryption program - Truecrypt - was mysteriously and suddenly announced as being "unusable" and "insecure".

Up till then, it was widely regarded as having some of the best encryption around, and being open source, anyone could see the source code, and identify any back doors into the app.

It may be that it was TOO secure, and the PTB decided it was too dangerous to allow the citizens of planet earth to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/04/truecrypt_ch/

It has been discussed on HPC before, but not the sudden termination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is not that such encryption could not be created-I actually said it may already have been created- my point is that it would not be implemented because a totally secure Internet is not in the interests of the PTB- so even if it were technically possible it will not be done.

The paradox is this- a totally secure online environment is not in the interests of the security agencies since it would leave them blind- they need an online environment that is less than opaque so that they might penetrate organised attempts to subvert the prevailing order.

So even if it were technically possible to secure all online traffic rendering it impossible to hack this will never be implemented at the official level.

This is why your bank account will never really be secure- it's not in the interests of the PTB to make it so.

I totally agree with you wonderpup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.