I have to agree here, B-of-A is not at fault.
That being said, as technically illiterate as the jury pool is likely to be, B-of-A is probably in trouble at the first verdict. Hopefully they at least win on appeal.
That being said, as technically illiterate as the jury pool is likely to be, B-of-A is probably in trouble at the first verdict. Hopefully they at least win on appeal.
I have a number of problems with the article itself, and I hesitated before I posted it due to what I think are some deficiencies. These illegal activities can be really, really hard to attribute unless someone gets lucky.
The author assumes that the actual hole has been found, but unless some supporting evidence clearly showing that hole was the origin of the breach, I take it with a big grain of salt. I would be interested in what progress was made in tracing where the money went.
But assuming that the author is right, and the breach occurred not at Bank of America but at Mr. Lopez's business, then I agree that Bank of America is not resposible for Mr. Lopez's loss. However, as you point out, who knows what a technically uninformed jury will decide, when even experts might not agree on even exactly what security breach is the root fault.
It might be interesting to see what The Register article had in it; perhaps it is clearer about the exact circumstances than what my reading of this article yields.