Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera 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?"
Businesses do not understand technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:4, Informative)
Internet Explorer advisories [securitytracker.com] (5 pages)
Google Chrome advisories [securitytracker.com] (1 page, total of 13 advisories)
And how is anyone supposed to believe that a browser that didn't exist before 2008 would have nearly as many flaws as one that's been around getting lusers infected for 15 years?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's also important how exploitable the issue is in the real world and what the likely consequences are of an exploit actually are.
I'd worry about how long a known exploit remains open for before I'd worry about how many exploits they've had in the past. In this regard both MS and Apple have very bad records.
Also with proprietary software you only have one source of a possible fix. Which may take a long time or wind up bun
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:5, Informative)
Google Chrome 3.x [secunia.com] has had 5 advisories, 1 of which is unpatched. Google Chrome 4.x [secunia.com] has had 6 advisories, 1 of which is unpatched. Google Chrome 5.x [secunia.com] has had 2 advisories, 0 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 6.x [secunia.com] has had 146 advisories, 23 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 7.x [secunia.com] has had 45 advisories, 10 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 8.x [secunia.com] has had 13 advisories, 4 of which are unpatched.
So no, it isn't just "marginally more secure."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
Google?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Browser Security Acid Test? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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-
Re: (Score:2)
"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 consume
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:4, Insightful)
You're fooling yourself.
I'm talking about web pages generally degrading gracefully. You don't need to ban people using edge cases. For example, people who set their browser to force larger fonts expect some things to appear differently. What you are basically pushing for is a Javascript to test the font size of the browser and ban those people from the webpage all in the name of "presentation". Might as well ban the Lynx users too. Or people who have images turned off for that matter. Also cell phones. We also can't allow users who don't use stylesheets to view anything either. All these horrible people will not see the web page how it was meant to be seen.
That is what you are advocating whether you realize it or not.
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that it's reality.
How you display your information is dreadfully important, this is only becoming more and more the case now that the internet is being treated somewhat seriously by organizations and marketing and PR departments are getting involved in it.
The idea of not controlling the display of information is positively terrifying to people, they're jobs and they're livelihoods depend(rationally or not) on things looking the right way they want them to look.
In my experience, most Marketing departments would rather people not be able to see a site at all than see it improperly.
Like I said in another post though, this particular issue is almost certainly due to them using an ajax framework which hasn't been updated recently. That list of browsers is a dead giveaway.
Re:Businesses do not understand technology (Score:5, Informative)
"Information. We want information. And by hook or by crook, we'll get it." -#2
No, you're the one fooling yourself. People will not generally get more out "nothing" presented well; no matter how pretty, nothing is still nothing. The New York Times doesn't get page views because of its layout; people go there for the content. People don't use Wikipedia because it's pretty, they go there for information.
A pretty web site that lacks content is completely useless to everyone. A web site that has the information you're looking for is useful no matter how ugly it is, as long as it's readable.
Content must come first; presentation is necessary, but content is why people are going there in the first place, and if there's no content it doesn't matter how pretty it is, they're not coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
Chase thinks people inherently choose cars that are bloated, slow and insecure?
I noticed that you equated Chrome to new and fast, but not to security. I think that might be the problem.
Time Warner Cable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Time Warner Cable (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time Warner Cable (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time Warner Cable (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. Chrome is pushed down the throats of users at a rate that is only comparable to MS IE. Google has the money to create misleading advertisements, they own the online ad services so can spam all the web pages they want. It is really just a click of an ad link to install Chrome, no more than the average piece of malware.
Awhile back, when Firefox was still sleek and sexy, and the darling of the nerd set, it was about the same. Every nerd who had a site had some "Get Firefox" banner on their site, meaning the internet was full of Firefox banners (more than Chrome, I haven't actually seen a "Get Chrome" banner yet, much less a "Compile Chromium" banner). Your malware comparison would have been pretty accurate with Firefox. Especially since Firefox was actively trying to knock down the big, "trusted" browser of the time. Firefox was a small, scary, upstart.
Chrome is now in roughly the same place, sans the geeky "grassroots" bit*.
I'm not surprised though, since it took some time for everyone to support the scary, new, "malware" that was Firefox. It will take a bit of time to support Chrome. Though it is odd, since they support Safari, and hence Webkit, so the barrier to supporting Chrome is largely artificial (how much of a difference, work-wise, is there in supporting two implementations of the same engine?).
As for Opera, I'm more shocked that they mentioned not supporting it, than I am than they wouldn't. Opera is almost invisible. They should support it, but it doesn't shock me that they don't.
*Though I have been doing to Firefox what I have done to IE a couple years ago, replacing it with Chrome on my parents and friends computers.
.... oookaaaayy ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Where the hell are they getting their security information from?" Recent Business School Product.
Re:.... oookaaaayy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Three words.... (Score:5, Informative)
User Agent Switcher.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/ [mozilla.org]
Re:Three words.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Three words.... (Score:4, Informative)
Doh, THIS User Agent Switcher. I use FF so much posting the original was automatic. (Self-LARTing ensues.)
http://www.renjusblog.com/2010/03/google-chrome-user-agent-switcher.html [renjusblog.com]
Re:Three words.... (Score:5, Informative)
Opera has this built in, and Chrome has an extension which both do the same thing.
Re:Three words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
How #$@#$ hard is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...
Re:How #$@#$ hard is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 ri
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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'r
As a mac user (Score:4, Insightful)
Not "positive" example (Score:2)
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
Re:As a mac user (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
How would you switch if the offending company were a monopoly, such as the local electric power company or (in a case like this) the only bank with ATMs in your town?
Hmmph... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
As a Chromium Developer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Typical wrong conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
'...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: (Score:2)
Let me translate that (Score:5, Funny)
"Or Higher" (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
> 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 (Score:2)
Wrong reading (Score:2)
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"
+1 Troll article (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
I work at Chase (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I work at Chase (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for letting me know how security is viewed at Chase. I mean if you are using the most insecure browser in the market today that is even seen by Microsoft as being inadequate. And Chase can't seem to find the time and money to upgrade, who knows what other corners they are willing to take to save a buck security-wise. I mean that's pathetic that a FINANCIAL institution is still using that completely insecure browser behind their doors.
People will think Chase is slow (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
As a member of the IT department... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
2001 called... (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:3, Funny)
IE 6 suspect? (Score:2)
"With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect."
Well, gs.statcounter has IE6 listed 4th, and only beaten by newer versions of IE and one version of Firefox. My company (not Chase) tracks browsers by type/version, and more than 80% of clients identify themselves as IE6. It would be silly for us not to support IE6, just as I'm sure Chase is basing their decision on similar experience with client data. If alternative browser users want t
They should stay out of it ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was a bank I would just completely avoid recommending any particular browser. Once you do that you are complicit / partially liable when a user is compromised by following your advice. As a case in point, as far as I know, FireFox 2.0 is no longer receiving security updates and there are known vulnerabilities in the last released version. Chase recommending this browser could easily be taken as an argument in a court case if a user is compromised while using their web site.
It would be far more sensible for the bank to impose no limitations and simply recommend that all users acquire a secure and standards compliant browser for using their web site.
Spoofing exist anymore? (Score:2)
Er, sorry to state the obvious, but can't these browsers simply spoof as IE if they wanted to?
"Not supported" doesn't mean "Won't work" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowhere in the notice does it say that you MUST use one of the supported browsers. It says, "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." I'd be willing to bet that the site will work fine in Chrome. Why don't they list Chrome? Because they don't test with Chrome ("Supported browsers are browsers that we consistently use and test with our site"). Why don't they test with Chrome? Because every additional browser that must be tested with adds time to development and QA. You could argue that Chrome has enough users for them to invest the time to test with it, but if they are testing with Safari, they are probably fine with Chrome anyway. It's a simple matter of resources and I, frankly, don't see much wrong with it. I'm speaking both as a web developer and a Chase customer.
How about stopping with the spin, mwandaw? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as mwandaw wants to feed the outrage machine by spinning and taking things out of context, let's take a look at the actual facts.
From the Chase FAQ:
Now, lets look at the spun summary:
Because many people do not upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Which is why they mention older browsers being a security risk. Oh, and as the summary says, usage of IE6 is plummeting, but as support is existing and use is still high, it is best to support it.
Who the fuck cares what Google thinks? Chrome is not the do-all, end-all of the internet. Chrome is not even that popular.
Would you want to bet that Chase checked their server logs to figure out what their customers use?
And the effects not using a supported browser?
And, about those older browsers?
Ok, now that the truth is out there, are you going to stop being an asshole, mwandaw?
Who are JPMorgan Chase? (Score:5, Funny)
> On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
Who are JPMorgan Chase? I did a Google search for them and I didn't find anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So more than half a fucking decade ago. Got it.
Re:People still bank at Chase? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should really think about this for a bit longer than it took you to write that diatribe. Ben Bernanke continues the inflationary policy of printing money, both long and short term money - cash and bonds, and he says he does not understand why commodities are valued higher and higher in terms of dollars?
If he does not understand it, it means he completely does not belong in his position. You don't understand any of it, so why are you commenting?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
I agree (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Bank "stealing" from you (Score:3, Informative)
If your bank is adjusting your balance downward without explanation, there are several places you can report it and get action. The local police are not one of them.
It could be a case of someone inside the bank committing fraud, in which case the management of the bank would LOVE to know about it and have the chance to act (I know... I work for a bank). It is even possible (although unlikely) that the bank officers are in on it and are attempting to defraud consumers. In the first case, reporting it to mana
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people do change banks, just not enough.
If you do change banks because they don't support your favorite browser, make sure you keep it a secret if you want to keep your friends. That said, I won't trust any bank that tells me IE6 is a secure browser, and Opera is not.
As for the real problem: a browser is not a banking platform, never was, and never will be good enough. How many potential security problems are there in a typical browser that would be completely eliminated with a simple native application?
Re:People still bank at Chase? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, you mean people are too lazy to switch? Well, that's different...
Re:People still bank at Chase? (Score:4, Informative)
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Where do you get your information? Some libertarian kook blog?
FDIC is not the Fed.
FDIC doesn't guarantee banks.
FDIC guarantees individuals' deposits. Your checking account. Your savings account.
When a bank can't cover its deposits, FDIC swoops and seizes the bank.
The bank is shut down. Management is fired. Stockholders lose everything.
Absolutely the opposite of what you imagine to be the case.
Re:People still bank at Chase? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The key is that most people don't walk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree, though, that many banks would fall all over themselves for the 500k+ accounts. And they probably offer protections and/o
Re: (Score:2)
Some customers are to costly to keep (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it
So you were providing them basically no money whatsoever to invest. Do you know how a bank works? They take in deposits and then invest the money deposited. In return they provide you security and safe access to your money and perhaps a bit of interest. The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements. Your $50 costs them money. Not a lot and probably not $2.00 but more than zero. Why would the bank want to do business with a customer that costs them money each month? They institute the fee specifically to drive away unprofitable customers.
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
I'm sure you're a nice guy but think about it for a minute. You were a small fry customer with little capital who cost more to serve than the bank could make off your investments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what happened. You did the right thing by going to a credit union that wanted your business. But expecting a large bank to care greatly about an unprofitable small customer is naive.
Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings.
"Funny"? That's not funny, that's dumb. You basically gave the bank $50 and got nothing in return.
Fault is irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements.
That's not the customer's fault.
True but irrelevant. A bank is a business and it exists to make a profit. If you expect them to conduct business in a way that is unprofitable to them you are being naive.
Retail banking != investment banking (Score:3, Insightful)
You speak as though the savings account was this guys only account with the bank. It wasn't.
Doesn't necessarily matter. THAT account was unprofitable for the bank. Furthermore he wasn't using it. If he had large accounts elsewhere he might have been in their private banking service but it sounds like he wasn't and so the bank didn't much care if he left.
You also need to consider future potential. Maybe this guy was small-fry, but tomorrow he might want a big loan to start a business or buy a house.
When that happens I'm sure the bank will be happy to consider working with him. In the meantime the bank has no evidence that this will ever be the case.
Because they nickel-and-dimed him on the savings account he closed his checking account with an undisclosed amount in it.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is for a large bank to have policies that are inconsis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:People still bank at Chase? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
My cards are with Chase (Score:2)
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 go
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't know what my APR is. I pay my bill in full each month.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They changed policies months ago so that charge interest based off average daily balance. (Some have even tried using rolling highest balance for the month)
I canceled my card when in 3 months they changed my rate from 7 to 17 to 21 then to 30% interest. Initially I did not care since I pay the balance off each month electronically. But at around then they also started charging interest using a rolling average of the (highest?) daily balance for the last couple months. I went on a business trip, payed off
Re: (Score:2)
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 :)