Fdkhasjhiogli bhskno9uadojvnlksdIn article ,
Unruh wrote:
|roberson [at] ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

|>In article ,
|> wrote:
|>:Should producers of software based services such as Automated Teller
|>:Machines (ATM) be held liable for economic injuries suffered when their
|>:system fails?

|>What kind of "economic injuries" ? Is it an "economic injury" if an
|>ATM takes itself out of service and the customer has to spend
|>4 cents on gas to get to the next one down the road?

|None of these would be regarded as economic injury by any court I do not
|believe.

It would be an "economic injury", it just isn't one that the courts are likely to find the ATM company to be at fault for. But that's under -current- laws, and the OP was asking a hypothetical question about a potential future in which "economic injuries" had stronger, more explicit, legal protections. Before we can comment on whether such a thing would be just, reasonable, or politically realistic, we need to know what the OP meant by "economic injuries".

:Nor would this be. The customer has the duty to make sure that if some time
:is important to him that he take into reasonable sources of delay. A lineup
:at an ATM is a reasonable and forseeable source of delay.

IMHO, the possibility that the ATMs might be out of order completely
(or locked for the night, or removed from service the morning before) would also be "reasonable and forseeable". I know, though, Bill, that you've done quite enough computer work to know that users/customers develop very different perspectives about "reasonable" than developers.

I am sure you've experienced for yourself that the more reliable you make a program or network or computer system, that the more upset people become when it is temporarily non-functional or mal-functional. And probably you've observed yourself that some of the people you work with no longer know how to do their work without email.
A -relatively- reliable technology becomes a crutch, and people start suffering "economic damage" when teh crutch slips, because the people have forgotten what things were like before.

I hear that cable TV companies really get an earful when the cable signal goes out...

--
Any sufficiently old bug becomes a feature. roberson [ Mi, 22 Juni 2005 00:31 ] [ ID #847740 ]

Re: Should ATM service provided be held liable?

On 21 Jun 2005 22:27:18 GMT, Unruh wrote:

>>>>Suppose a gang of theives has installed a full set of information
>>>>capturing devices -- e.g., a very thin card reader in front of the real
>>>>slot,.

>>>The bank could be held liable in this case, especially if the ATM is at the
>>>bank. ...

>> What was the response of the Canadian bank whose ATM was altered
>>this way? Didn't they just say that the customers are responsible that
>>no camera could record their information? I know that my bank put
>>stickers indicating this ('Use your other hand to cover the hand
>>punching the keypad').

>Did it ever go to court? The case of the person in the UK who was thrown in
>jail for fraud because he claimed an atm transaction had not been made by
>him was ultimately thrown out of court when the bank's blatantly self
>serving statements were challenged. Just because the bank says it does not
>make it true.
>Mind you their advice is good. If you have to go to court to prove the bank
>liable, it will cost far far far more than was ever removed from your
>account by the scanners. It is far better not to get involved than it is to
>prove another person liable after the damage has been done.

I did not hear what was the final outcome in that case, but I believe that it is the same bank that refused responsability when a
Mexican millionaire was defrauded of a few million dollars by one of its employees.
I don't think that saying 'do not get into an accident because the car may burst into flames' would excuse an organization for improper design. I would think that the banks should take some responsability for ensuring the security of its ATMs. Of course, now that many ATMs belong to independent operators I am not sure who would be responsible. 'The cameras capture your hand motions and then the criminals can read your secret code and empty your checking account. Even worse, when this happens banks shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do.'

Of course some people take it into their own hands:
'A man apparently angered after an ATM transaction went wrong fired 10 shots into the Fendalton Westpac Trust branch in Christchurch,
Australia with a .22 rifle early April 5.'

Geo
"GEO" Me [ Mi, 22 Juni 2005 06:42 ] [ ID #849478 ]

Re: Should ATM service provided be held liable?

"GEO" wrote:
[deleted]
> Of course some people take it into their own hands:
> 'A man apparently angered after an ATM transaction went wrong fired 10
> shots into the Fendalton Westpac Trust branch in Christchurch,
> Australia with a .22 rifle early April 5.'
>

If they can't get the country [1] right, then I doubt the rest of the story. [1] Christchurch is in New Zealand (and there is none in Australia).

> Geo