Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenheart
This has been a concern of mine since this whole Phorm thing came to light, but I've not really known how best to describe it.
As there would be another tier between user and ISP/bank on a phorm enabled ISP the risk of fraud increses increases, in the event of a substantial increase of fraud on a Phorm enabled ISP could the ISP/Phorm be held accountable?
|
I've been wondering the same thing. The ISP and/or Phorm would of course be liable if ANY fraud could be shown to be caused by them. Note that the Virgin terms and conditions seek to limit Virgin's liability for our financial losses to £1 million and to exclude liability for all "indirect" loss caused by them. But Virgin could not rely on these in the case of fraud: they would be liable for the whole amount of any and all frauds that they had a part in. It's not such an unlikely scenario: the surveillance makes it easy to identify high net worth individuals. The interception and the impersonation of 3rd party websites provides a ready-made route for the frauds to be perpetrated.
I am drafting a letter to send to my bank and credit card companies, asking them (in effect) whether they consider I am sharing my security data with a third party by allowing my ISP to intercept and process it, and what effect that has on the bank's liability to compensate me in the event of fraud. This is quite well-developed and I'm happy to share it.
The other thing I am thinking about is asking an insurance broker for a quote for a premium to insure myself against the possibility that the Russian programmers and/or the ISP staff intercept and extract my banking and credit card details. Comments welcome from people who know more about insurance than I do,