Are IB accounts protected from fraud and unauthorized access?

[jimrockford]

Quote from cscott:

That is a ridiculous and assinine reply, Def. The real question should be

Q: "Why doesn't IB think it's important enough to put a small fraction out of the millions of dollars it makes in profit into fraud protection to protect their customers?
A: Because profit is more important to IB than protecting their customers.

I disagree with def, but I don't think his reply was ridiculous or asinine. I think either that there is something more to his employer's position that I don't understand, or more likely, he just hasn't thought through the correctness of his employer's position.

Ridiculous and asinine? I think those terms would apply to cscott's long history of unfair and untrue public attacks against IB.

Def, I hope you won't let the likes of cscott discourage your participation in these discussions. I hope you recognize that outside of a small minority of people like cscott, your involvement in these discussions is respected and appreciated by IB customers at EliteTrader.

 

[jimrockford]

Let me give an example as to how the opposition by some EliteTrader members, to better security policies for IB, is fundamentally irrational.

Here is one of the irrational arguments presented, in this thread, against better security:

Quote from loufah:

Anything can happen, but if we were afraid of everything we wouldn't use any broker or bank ever and just stuff our money in a mattress.

I noted this irrationality as follows:

Quote from jimrockford:

I have a better idea. Why not take those risks of fraud which are reasonable to take, and avoid those risks of fraud which are unreasonable? Why not ask one's broker to take reasonable precautions in order to minimize risks of fraud? I think it is extremely unreasonable and simple-minded to oversimplify the available choices as just the two of not trading at all, versus not asking for reasonable precautions to minimize fraud risks. I am really amazed by the inability of so many people to approach this subject rationally.

The result was the following response:

Quote from giles117:

Perhapos you have done this and perhaps I have overlooked it. Please detail a plan of how and what should be done. Thanks. Then perhaps I'll stop "kicking against the pricks"

This response was irrational. It suggested that anything short of a "detailed plan" was not a rational approach to security. I therefore responded:

Quote from jimrockford:

Just read my previous posts in this thread for some ideas. It should be obvious to you that I cannot make a plan for IB, more detailed than the suggestions I have already made on this thread, because I do not have sufficient information to determine exactly how IB should run its business.

This was the next response:

Quote from giles117:

So in short. No.

No, I cannot make a detailed plan, but yes, I did approach the subject rationally. giles117 is trying to make it appear that since I could not satisfy his unreasonable inquiry, I have not approached the subject rationally. I'm sure that most people who read the comments by myself and others, seeking better security in this thread, would agree that we did rationally discuss the subject of security, and that those who oppose new security measures have not done so. They have offered nothing but insults and irrational arguments; and one of their main themes is that the anti-security guys are smarter than all the crybabies and morons who want better security.

 

[kiwi_trader]

Jim,

Here's the number 1 rational objection: I don't want to hand anyone a blank cheque to increase my costs. If someone can demonstrate to me that the insurance is reasonably priced then I'll look at it.

 

[cscott]

Fraud protection is a no-brainer for any large company. Any business with more than 10 employees(and sometimes fewer) is probably going to have some dishonest employees. There's no way around it. Even some shoddy forex brokers have protection from unscrupulous employees in the form of a security or fidelity bond. It makes no sense to me why all brokers don't offer this protection.

It appears to be a money thing. Since most brokers don't have it, IB doesn't have to spend the money and offer the proection in order to be competitive.

 

[version77]

Did anyone notice the alert message IB gave out last week telling
everyone not to click on any links in email messages that were being
sent to IB customers which were phishing emails?

I did. I wonder if anyone got boned before that was sent out...

 

[giles117]

Never assume what is in the mind of another person. However, If I was playing poker, you just tipped your hand.

Anyway...

My Purpose was for the various supporters to share their opinions and points. What you could glean from lists" are ideas of how you can self-Protect during the interim time of their even being an undertaking on IB's part for fraud protection....

If I wanted to make it "seem" a certain way, I am certain I could have use more tactful methods.

I don't doubt your rationality or ability to develop ideas. In a cooperative effort people solve tons of problems. I don't have a "fraud" issue. I don't leave my computer open to vulnerable attacks, etc.. So it isn't an issue for me.

Quote from jimrockford:

Let me give an example as to how the opposition by some EliteTrader members, to better security policies for IB, is fundamentally irrational.

Here is one of the irrational arguments presented, in this thread, against better security:



I noted this irrationality as follows:



The result was the following response:



This response was irrational. It suggested that anything short of a "detailed plan" was not a rational approach to security. I therefore responded:



This was the next response:



No, I cannot make a detailed plan, but yes, I did approach the subject rationally. giles117 is trying to make it appear that since I could not satisfy his unreasonable inquiry, I have not approached the subject rationally. I'm sure that most people who read the comments by myself and others, seeking better security in this thread, would agree that we did rationally discuss the subject of security, and that those who oppose new security measures have not done so. They have offered nothing but insults and irrational arguments; and one of their main themes is that the anti-security guys are smarter than all the crybabies and morons who want better security.

 

[giles117]

Quote from version77:

Did anyone notice the alert message IB gave out last week telling
everyone not to click on any links in email messages that were being
sent to IB customers which were phishing emails?

I did. I wonder if anyone got boned before that was sent out...

My Spam filter(s) keep that junk away from me with about 98% effectiveness. I have 2 filters. One from my ISP and 1 on my computer....

What the ISP misses, Spam Sieve Gets....

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from giles117:

I don't have a "fraud" issue. I don't leave my computer open to vulnerable attacks, etc.. So it isn't an issue for me.

If your computer is connected to the internet, it is vulnerable to attack. No amount of expertise is sufficient to allow you to dismiss this threat entirely. Your error, as to the vulnerability of your computer, is a small one compared to your much greater error of assuming that your computer is your only area of vulnerability. Any broker's employees might be tricked, bribed, blackmailed, or coerced into compromising your account; or the broker's own systems might be compromised. You do have fraud issues. You just don't know it. One of your greatest fraud issues is that you believe you don't have any. Let's hope that nothing ever happens to prove to you that you were wrong.

 

[giles117]

Lack of the ability to read and understand is a MAJOR issue in the world.

I said "I don't leave my computer open to VULNERABLE ATTACKS."

Read the flow of the words, understand the statement.

I never said my computer wasnt vulnerable to attacks. There is a big difference in the wording....

Sorry, but I have children. I home school them and am an avid proponent of PROPER speech and clear understanding of language. Though I type like crap.

But again, this isnt about me and my opinions. I was asking for your enlightenment. Now you are making it look like you can give any clear concise points of implementation. You still harp on my words.. Boring..

Can any of us control the people at a Bank? Can they wipe out your acunt?? it can all happen, and there are laws to protect us. Of course a Law is only as good as it's enforcement.

Back to PainKiller Jane...

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from giles117:

Lack of the ability to read and understand is a MAJOR issue in the world.

I said "I don't leave my computer open to VULNERABLE ATTACKS."

Read the flow of the words, understand the statement.

I never said my computer wasnt vulnerable to attacks. There is a big difference in the wording....

Sorry, but I have children. I home school them and am an avid proponent of PROPER speech and clear understanding of language.

I think that your sentence, "I don't leave my computer open to VULNERABLE ATTACKS", is nonsensical, and fails to communicate whatever meaning you were attempting to convey. Your sentence is so poorly written, that I cannot even guess at the nature of the distinction you were trying to make. The fact that you home school your children and emphasize "PROPER speech" doesn't mean that you are actually qualified to advise them or me or anybody on how to read or write. I also think this discussion would be more worthwhile if you could stick to the issue of fraud protection, instead of trying to impress us with your allegedly superior language skills. I think that neither your language skills, nor your security expertise, are quite as strong as you believe. I think that this discussion would be more worthwhile if we could focus on the topic of brokerage account security, instead of on trying to demonstrate superiority to one another.

The argument that "You should agree with my position, because I am smarter than the people who disagree with me", should not be convincing to anybody.