<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good morning, you owe us $887,180 dollars and 48 cents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/</link>
	<description>Information security, a little slower...a little deeper</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:26:43 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NevDull</title>
		<link>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/comment-page-1/#comment-1813</link>
		<dc:creator>NevDull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praetorianprefect.com/?p=1235#comment-1813</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder if it&#039;s done instead of using a locking mechanism because it allows additional transactions to be requested -- more data about possible bad actors in the case of fraud.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Obviously they should indicate a fraud hold on receipts, online banking sign-ins, etc, but there may be interesting constraints to interbank processes that this is the most efficient way to mark the account as potentially defrauded, stop the bleeding, and still obtain data while working within the parameters of a system they can&#039;t fully control.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Obviously a B of A statement on the matter would be best.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if it&#8217;s done instead of using a locking mechanism because it allows additional transactions to be requested &#8212; more data about possible bad actors in the case of fraud.</p>

<p>Obviously they should indicate a fraud hold on receipts, online banking sign-ins, etc, but there may be interesting constraints to interbank processes that this is the most efficient way to mark the account as potentially defrauded, stop the bleeding, and still obtain data while working within the parameters of a system they can&#8217;t fully control.</p>

<p>Obviously a B of A statement on the matter would be best.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N Shady</title>
		<link>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/comment-page-1/#comment-1662</link>
		<dc:creator>N Shady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praetorianprefect.com/?p=1235#comment-1662</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder if the interest you earn on the account (a calculation based on your average account balance) is affected by the days that go by with such a huge negative balance.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if the interest you earn on the account (a calculation based on your average account balance) is affected by the days that go by with such a huge negative balance.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter McEvoy</title>
		<link>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/comment-page-1/#comment-1656</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter McEvoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praetorianprefect.com/?p=1235#comment-1656</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;OK, I&#039;m not an accountant, but this practice doesn&#039;t make sence from the point of view of the bank trying to &quot;balance the books&quot;, which (to my mind) would be a case of summing the account balances.  Surely applying arbitrary 888,888,888 deductions would give a false &quot;bottom line&quot;? The 888,888,888 would have to be moved to another account for it to balance, and again give a false impression of credits and debits?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I&#8217;m not an accountant, but this practice doesn&#8217;t make sence from the point of view of the bank trying to &#8220;balance the books&#8221;, which (to my mind) would be a case of summing the account balances.  Surely applying arbitrary 888,888,888 deductions would give a false &#8220;bottom line&#8221;? The 888,888,888 would have to be moved to another account for it to balance, and again give a false impression of credits and debits?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sachin</title>
		<link>http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/10/good-morning-you-owe-use-887180-dollars-and-48-cents/comment-page-1/#comment-1654</link>
		<dc:creator>Sachin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://praetorianprefect.com/?p=1235#comment-1654</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;these kind of things happen quite a lot in India and happened with me too...but as you said these alo get resolved by themselves....&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>these kind of things happen quite a lot in India and happened with me too&#8230;but as you said these alo get resolved by themselves&#8230;.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
