Hacker News
points by esseph 1 day ago | 0 comments
> But it makes no sense why common high strees banks refuse to cater to power users

"Power users" don't make them more money. In fact, from their POV, you're a legal, reputational, and security liability.

[–] rockskon 1 day ago
Reputational and security liability is highly debatable. Legal is highly jurisdiction dependant.

They often act as marketing and can find and report security vulnerabilities rather than the criminal element doing so first.

[–] esseph 1 day ago
> Reputational and security liability is highly debatable

Hmmm then why are banks telling people to not use AI systems to log into their bank?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-banks-detect-una...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-banks-block-ai-9.7...

[–] rockskon 1 day ago
Is this thread not a conversation about GrapheneOS and those that use it? I'm not sure what relevance AI has here.
[–] esseph 1 day ago
Parent thread is discussing banking API access, and requiring a particular type of phone and OS to access said services.

Seems to be in the "banks controlling how customers access services" context.

[–] rockskon 1 day ago
It is hardly a reasonable comparison in a thread about a bank ASN blocking non-Google Android to equivocate that to blocking consumers using AI agents from making transactions with a user's banking info.
[–] esseph 1 day ago
As elric said:

> > Access to that kind of data requires regulation

> It's my data. I want to access it how I see fit.

... With phone of choice, operating system of choice, AI agent of choice, browser or no browser.