Safe Deposit Boxes Aren't Safe(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Safe Deposit Boxes Aren't Safe
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/business/safe-deposit-box-theft.html
145 comments
I learned the hard way several years ago that a bank I used to have will happily cash two checks with the same check number the same amount and the the same recipient (on the same day even).
Apparently check numbers are for my convenience not for any sort of auditing on their part.
Apparently check numbers are for my convenience not for any sort of auditing on their part.
Likewise signatures.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4344941
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4344941
This is correct. When you order checks you decide The start number. Check processing is quite interesting. Banks can either be very lax or very restrictive in what checks they will accept.
I had this happen once too, and was shocked that bank allowed same check to be deposited twice.
Isn't this just covered by ordinary tort law? There is a duty of care, there is a lapse of said duty. The issue seems to be that people are putting valuable items into it and then signing a contract that says that the limit of liability is limited to much less than the value. If that isn't negotiable with the bank then the bank is just not willing to accept the risk. Then either you can find an insurer who is willing to accept the risk or you can find a different bank who is willing to accept the risk or you can build a safe yourself since all the risk is on you anyways.
There doesn't need to be special laws for everything.
There doesn't need to be special laws for everything.
In the case of banks I think they have proven conclusively that they do need laws for everything and extensive oversight to ensure they are complying with those laws. They are always looking for loopholes and just the right wording to put their interests in front of yours. At least in the US, maybe banks are better behaved in the rest of the world. In the US we have three federal agencies and countless state agencies all dedicated to keeping the banks in line and they all stay busy.
As the article says, banks are trying to get out of this business. They are probably just there to avoid angering customers who already have one, and to appeal to the nostalgic sense of a bank being a physical thing.
Not sure what regulation will really accomplish other than giving them an excuse to exit the business faster.
Not sure what regulation will really accomplish other than giving them an excuse to exit the business faster.
If we are to add a law here, I think it may make sense to require contracts to be easy to understand and as short as is reasonable. I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to skim over fine print especially for something that seems obvious.
Something like a safe deposit box should be a single page document with something like this:
- cost is $X/month and prices are revaluated every Y months and can increase by a maximum of $Z/month - may access the box X times/month without any additional fees - bank's liability is max $X or Y months of rent, whichever is higher/lower - if rent is not paid, X happens, and after Y months of non-payment, Z happens - policy/fee for lost keys
I haven't actually opened one, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contract was 10 pages long and the maximum liability was somewhere in the middle in fairly small print.
Something like a safe deposit box should be a single page document with something like this:
- cost is $X/month and prices are revaluated every Y months and can increase by a maximum of $Z/month - may access the box X times/month without any additional fees - bank's liability is max $X or Y months of rent, whichever is higher/lower - if rent is not paid, X happens, and after Y months of non-payment, Z happens - policy/fee for lost keys
I haven't actually opened one, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contract was 10 pages long and the maximum liability was somewhere in the middle in fairly small print.
I like the way Creative Commons licenses do it. First there is a simple bullet-point-wise summary for layman like this: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ . Then there is the entire legal code for lawyers: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode .
I think all contracts should be written like this. If any clause of the legal code contradicts the summary for layman, then the summary for layman should take precedence during its interpretation in the court.
This practice is not unusual. Books often start with a preface or foreword. Very dense technical or research papers start with an abstract and introduction. But for some reason contracts do not follow this practice.
I think all contracts should be written like this. If any clause of the legal code contradicts the summary for layman, then the summary for layman should take precedence during its interpretation in the court.
This practice is not unusual. Books often start with a preface or foreword. Very dense technical or research papers start with an abstract and introduction. But for some reason contracts do not follow this practice.
How would that help with this - "Banks typically argue — and courts have in many cases agreed — that customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms, even if they leased their box years or even decades earlier."
We could also take the mortgage approach, where the actual contract is in fact very long, but there is a required simple-to-understand cover sheet that summarizes all the pertinent details in a clear way.
Quick google - Chase’s contract below, bold print middle of the first page.
https://www.chase.com/content/dam/chase-ux/documents/persona...
https://www.chase.com/content/dam/chase-ux/documents/persona...
Interesting clause. There’s no insurance and no guarantee of protection against anything. One wonders what stops them from keeping your stuff in a basket next to the mints.
I would say the law that's needed is advertising-based. There's a huge disconnect between what "safety deposit box" means to people and what those actually, legally, are in 2019 according to the fine print. That's the main issue.
Imagine if it were legal for companies to pass something off as a "bank account" when they weren't actually a bank. And it explains it all in the fine print, but as we all know nobody reads the fine print, especially when the offered product is so seemingly familiar. We'd have fly-by-night operations losing people's money left and right, and then legally washing their hands of it.
Imagine if it were legal for companies to pass something off as a "bank account" when they weren't actually a bank. And it explains it all in the fine print, but as we all know nobody reads the fine print, especially when the offered product is so seemingly familiar. We'd have fly-by-night operations losing people's money left and right, and then legally washing their hands of it.
> Imagine if it were legal for companies to pass something off as a "bank account" when they weren't actually a bank.
Robinhood’s attempt at checking accounts come to mind...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2018/12/14/sipc-hea...
Robinhood’s attempt at checking accounts come to mind...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2018/12/14/sipc-hea...
> There is a duty of care
Attorney here! (Not legal advice -- consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction).
In order to prevail in a negligence case, you have to establish duty of care in your complaint. You can't simply declare it exists and expect a court to accept it without question.
That said, I generally agree with the rest of your comment. You can always tell how much entities are really looking out for your interest by reading their limitations-of-liability clauses. Wise consumers should purchase insurance to cover the gap.
Attorney here! (Not legal advice -- consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction).
In order to prevail in a negligence case, you have to establish duty of care in your complaint. You can't simply declare it exists and expect a court to accept it without question.
That said, I generally agree with the rest of your comment. You can always tell how much entities are really looking out for your interest by reading their limitations-of-liability clauses. Wise consumers should purchase insurance to cover the gap.
OK, but even if there was no limit in damages, what did you have in there? How do you go about proving it when it's only you putting and taking things out of there.
The same way you do with house contents for an insurance policy? Photos and other documentation are useful.And no insurance policy is going to be unlimited. Specific very high value items will be enumerated.
That's the job of a notary, usually.
Not in the States. Our notaries glance at your ID before they countersign a document.
This is one of the other jobs of a notary: not vouching for identity, but rather signing off on a document stating that a collection of associated objects are what is described in the document.
Such a document has the same sort of purpose as a certificate of authenticity you'd get from an appraiser; but you use a notary in cases where the thing doesn't need authentication to be valuable, instead being a liquid asset with a clear market value. The notary doesn't write down such a value, or even know it; they just sign off on a description of the item, knowing that the value can later be readily determined from the description by any interested party.
Of course, to make this work, you need the notary to sign off on the contents of the collection right before you secure the collection into storage. Otherwise, you could just make arbitrary alterations to the contents yourself. For this reason—and because notaries don't usually like getting dragged all around town to vouch for things—usually a bank will retain the services of notary of their own, and offer it to safe-deposit-box users as an option. If a notary is used to vouch for the contents on first deposit, then a notary must be used on all further deposits/withdrawals to "retain the chain of custody." This turns the safe deposit box into a managed safe-deposit service.
Such a document has the same sort of purpose as a certificate of authenticity you'd get from an appraiser; but you use a notary in cases where the thing doesn't need authentication to be valuable, instead being a liquid asset with a clear market value. The notary doesn't write down such a value, or even know it; they just sign off on a description of the item, knowing that the value can later be readily determined from the description by any interested party.
Of course, to make this work, you need the notary to sign off on the contents of the collection right before you secure the collection into storage. Otherwise, you could just make arbitrary alterations to the contents yourself. For this reason—and because notaries don't usually like getting dragged all around town to vouch for things—usually a bank will retain the services of notary of their own, and offer it to safe-deposit-box users as an option. If a notary is used to vouch for the contents on first deposit, then a notary must be used on all further deposits/withdrawals to "retain the chain of custody." This turns the safe deposit box into a managed safe-deposit service.
I don't know of any US bank that uses a notary in quite this way. It's not a notarial act under the model notary act.
A notary can acknowledge the depositor's claim and identity, but can't be held liable for the depositor's claims.
A notary can verify that a man with John Doe's legal ID claims to be depositing one (1) Shroud of Turin and twelve (12) Pieces of Eight from a Spanish Galleon with certificate of authenticity from the Franklin Mint, but the notary is not verifying the truth about or value of the actual contents.
A notary can acknowledge the depositor's claim and identity, but can't be held liable for the depositor's claims.
A notary can verify that a man with John Doe's legal ID claims to be depositing one (1) Shroud of Turin and twelve (12) Pieces of Eight from a Spanish Galleon with certificate of authenticity from the Franklin Mint, but the notary is not verifying the truth about or value of the actual contents.
> notary of their own
I have never heard that such a thing as private notary exists.
I have never heard that such a thing as private notary exists.
Right, I didn't mean to imply there is such a thing (and such a thing would be thoroughly useless.) I meant that they have a notary on retainer, that that notary gets almost all their work from the bank's clientele, and that they tend to operate either out of—or right across the street from—the bank itself. They're still an independent notary; but instead of paying them yourself, you pay the bank and the bank pays them to come in and help you. But it's still a relationship between you and the notary, not between the bank and the notary. The bank is essentially serving as lead-gen for the notary.
Anyway, private notaries are a real thing in UAE.
See: http://www.adllaw.ae/private_notary.htm
See: http://www.adllaw.ae/private_notary.htm
Wouldn't it be more efficient to put the risk on the bank, so that it is the bank that seeks insurance to cover that risk?
As a consumer, I have no idea what the risks of a safe deposit box are, and so have no idea what I need in the way of insurance to cover those risks.
The bank, on the other hand, has real data about the safety of their safe deposit boxes, and the value of loses when those boxes are compromised.
As a consumer, I have no idea what the risks of a safe deposit box are, and so have no idea what I need in the way of insurance to cover those risks.
The bank, on the other hand, has real data about the safety of their safe deposit boxes, and the value of loses when those boxes are compromised.
> Wouldn't it be more efficient to put the risk on the bank, so that it is the bank that seeks insurance to cover that risk?
No, because the value stored in the boxes differs by orders of magnitude and the bank doesn't even know the value.
$200/yr is just not a reasonable amount of payment to take on a 10s of millions of dollars liability, and most box customers wouldn't pay whatever price would make that liability reasonable.
(Based on the 500x annual cap mentioned in the article you could imagine that the bank would want $20k/yr for a $10m liability)
No, because the value stored in the boxes differs by orders of magnitude and the bank doesn't even know the value.
$200/yr is just not a reasonable amount of payment to take on a 10s of millions of dollars liability, and most box customers wouldn't pay whatever price would make that liability reasonable.
(Based on the 500x annual cap mentioned in the article you could imagine that the bank would want $20k/yr for a $10m liability)
Here in Sweden it has been very clear for the last 20 years that banks consider anything non-digital to be legacy and aspects of banking that should be closed down to reduce costs. They know where the profits are and where it scales.
As far as I know, only a handful of banks in Stockholm still have safe deposit boxes. I even tried to start a safety deposit box business as a private non-bank related thing. I can´t even begin to describe to you what type of regulatory hurdles and red-tape I was faced with when trying to get that up and running. It´s pretty clear at this point that the entire system here is trying its hardest to reject everything of a non-digitalized and traceable nature.
For the longest time I used to believe that it is because Sweden is first to embrace new "technology". I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different and it will come back to bite this country in the ass in the not too distant future. I would be surprised if our economy even survives another decade without some serious restructuring.
For the longest time I used to believe that it is because Sweden is first to embrace new "technology". I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different and it will come back to bite this country in the ass in the not too distant future. I would be surprised if our economy even survives another decade without some serious restructuring.
> I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different and it will come back to bite this country in the ass in the not too distant future.
Do you have some additional thoughts on what this "something completely different" is? I'm a Norwegian and follow the political developments in Sweden with great interest, and sometimes a degree of morbid fascination.
I get the impression that, among other things, there is a push towards greater surveillance and tracking of everybody's spending behaviors, coupled with a political correctness craze that seems to divert the attention from more central issues. Would be curious if you had any thoughts on the powers that drive these developments, or whether there is anything related that's not too obvious.
Do you have some additional thoughts on what this "something completely different" is? I'm a Norwegian and follow the political developments in Sweden with great interest, and sometimes a degree of morbid fascination.
I get the impression that, among other things, there is a push towards greater surveillance and tracking of everybody's spending behaviors, coupled with a political correctness craze that seems to divert the attention from more central issues. Would be curious if you had any thoughts on the powers that drive these developments, or whether there is anything related that's not too obvious.
> Do you have some additional thoughts on what this "something completely different" is?
Negative interest rates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/01/31/the-u...
This has really just begun, things are going to become more and more nonsensical like people getting paid interest to take out a mortgage and paying the bank interest on their deposits. Both are already happening to a limited extent in Denmark:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-s...
Negative interest rates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/01/31/the-u...
This has really just begun, things are going to become more and more nonsensical like people getting paid interest to take out a mortgage and paying the bank interest on their deposits. Both are already happening to a limited extent in Denmark:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-s...
> I can´t even begin to describe to you what type of regulatory hurdles and red-tape I was faced with when trying to get that up and running.
I can imagine how harder it is than in the USA. From the article: "The combination of lax regulations and customers not paying attention to the fine print of their box-leasing agreements allows many banks to deflect responsibility when valuables are damaged or go missing."
Consumer protection is usually is a hassle for business. But, it is needed if you expect companies to behave even close to what is the public expectation. I understand that for business the lax regulation in the USA and the complete lack of rights of consumers make easier to get profits, even if it's at the cost of your own customers.
> I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different ... I would be surprised if our economy even survives another decade without some serious restructuring.
These are very strong statements at the same time that quite vague. Did I miss something? Can you explain what do you mean?
I can imagine how harder it is than in the USA. From the article: "The combination of lax regulations and customers not paying attention to the fine print of their box-leasing agreements allows many banks to deflect responsibility when valuables are damaged or go missing."
Consumer protection is usually is a hassle for business. But, it is needed if you expect companies to behave even close to what is the public expectation. I understand that for business the lax regulation in the USA and the complete lack of rights of consumers make easier to get profits, even if it's at the cost of your own customers.
> I have now come to understand now that it is something completely different ... I would be surprised if our economy even survives another decade without some serious restructuring.
These are very strong statements at the same time that quite vague. Did I miss something? Can you explain what do you mean?
The funny thing is that compared to most modern products a safe deposit box is pretty simple in terms of expectation. They offer a level of physical security that is genuinely useful. If that physical security is breached then all bets are off.
However, from the article it seems most cases are not traditional breaches of security, but just the bank fumbling things up and disposing of the material by mistake
> I even tried to start a safety deposit box business as a private non-bank related thing. I can´t even begin to describe to you what type of regulatory hurdles and red-tape I was faced with
I imagine that the self-storage business in the USA is a very low regulation business, much less than opening a restaurant for example. How is the regulation for a (non-bank) "safety deposit box" business in Sweden any different than a self-storage business?
According to Wikipedia[1], the USA has ~52,000 self-storage businesses whereas Sweden has only 112. So the USA has wildly more self-storage than Sweden on a per capita basis: one storage place for 6000 people vs 92000 in Sweden. Are regulations worse in Sweden because self-storage is not a thing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_storage
I imagine that the self-storage business in the USA is a very low regulation business, much less than opening a restaurant for example. How is the regulation for a (non-bank) "safety deposit box" business in Sweden any different than a self-storage business?
According to Wikipedia[1], the USA has ~52,000 self-storage businesses whereas Sweden has only 112. So the USA has wildly more self-storage than Sweden on a per capita basis: one storage place for 6000 people vs 92000 in Sweden. Are regulations worse in Sweden because self-storage is not a thing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_storage
I'd assume people just aren't as prone to collecting unnecessary stuff. My guess is that most of the things in self-storage are junk that people should not store, but have hard time letting go. It'd be less of a mental and financial burden to sell or dispose of all that.
Not saying that there aren't valid use cases, but I personally don't know a single person who is using one.
Not saying that there aren't valid use cases, but I personally don't know a single person who is using one.
If you are really curious I can give you a few use cases I've seen that I think are valid.
1. There is a gap in housing between when someone moves out of their old place and when they can move into their new one. So they need to store all their stuff for a while.
2. Someone has a nice hardwood tree taken down in their yard and they want to keep the wood, but they don't want their garage /workshop to be full of drying wood.
3. Bulky outdoor sports equipment. Storing your kayak, etc. in your urban apartment may not be an efficient use of space.
4. If you are in business for yourself, you may need a small amount of warehouse space. The easiest way to get that in the US? Self storage.
1. There is a gap in housing between when someone moves out of their old place and when they can move into their new one. So they need to store all their stuff for a while.
2. Someone has a nice hardwood tree taken down in their yard and they want to keep the wood, but they don't want their garage /workshop to be full of drying wood.
3. Bulky outdoor sports equipment. Storing your kayak, etc. in your urban apartment may not be an efficient use of space.
4. If you are in business for yourself, you may need a small amount of warehouse space. The easiest way to get that in the US? Self storage.
5. Someone knows they're going to be moving soon, but they're going to have to do so in a hurry. So they put some of their stuff in storage ahead of time, thus making the actual move much easier.
6. Someone is going to be traveling/in the military/in the hospital/in jail/homeless for a while and can't or doesn't want to keep paying full rent just to store their stuff.
7. An older couple have houseful of truly nice furniture and/or tools but are moving to retirement home. Their kids/grandkids want the family heirlooms but don't have room for them - yet.
6. Someone is going to be traveling/in the military/in the hospital/in jail/homeless for a while and can't or doesn't want to keep paying full rent just to store their stuff.
7. An older couple have houseful of truly nice furniture and/or tools but are moving to retirement home. Their kids/grandkids want the family heirlooms but don't have room for them - yet.
8. Have insurance that requires a car be stored in a locked garage, but live in an apartment without a garage.
Living somewhere else (say overseas) for a period of time.
I thought I was clear about there being also valid use cases? I'm not disputing your examples.
They're first to embrace technology, because digital money is money that can be tracked. So the tax "take" will be higher with digital money than with cash. High tax countries have all the incentives to go digital as soon as possible.
Germany is a reasonably high-taxing country, but their obsession with using cash borders on the infuriating.
But it’s the citizens that are attached to cash. Not the government nor the businesses.
As a European living in the US, I fully appreciate the loose regulatory system here. Lots of businesses start by breaking some sort of existing norm, or even law. As you hinted in your comment, it's not enough for the government to want to embrace technology. France is another example that has been talking about this forever, but I don't see much come of it (maybe it made the govt itself more efficient?). They really have to internalize that rules need to be broken with impunity for innovation to happen.
Did you consider starting a self storage business that happened to have excellent security?
In Norway I used to have a deposit box to safe-guard important papers, like birth certificate, "statsborgerbrevet" (confirmation of citizenship), old passport (as proof of previous citizenship), etc. Then the bank shut down the operations, they said it was decided so by the government which was worried about fortunes (and "other (unspecified) stuff") being stored, untraceable and untaxable.
I also used to have a safe in my previous apartment (with less valuable papers), had a break-in and they didn't bother opening it there, they took the whole thing weighing 40-ish kg.
So where am I supposed to store such kind of valuables now?
F*ing stupid government.
I also used to have a safe in my previous apartment (with less valuable papers), had a break-in and they didn't bother opening it there, they took the whole thing weighing 40-ish kg.
So where am I supposed to store such kind of valuables now?
F*ing stupid government.
> I also used to have a safe in my previous apartment (with less valuable papers), had a break-in and they didn't bother opening it there, they took the whole thing weighing 40-ish kg
Do you think they would have taken it had they known what was in it?
I have some papers, and some data discs, that would be of no use to a burglar but that I would rather not lose. I keep them in a small safe (14 kg, 10 liter). I keep it out in the open and unlocked. The hope is that if it draws a burglar's attention, they will see that the contents are useless and either ignore it, or if they decide they like the safe itself dump the content and just take the safe.
If it were locked they might imagine all kinds of valuable, untraceable things I could be keeping.
So why even have a safe if I don't lock it? Because it is rated to keep papers and CD/DVD discs safe for one hour in a 1700℉ (930℃) fire.
Do you think they would have taken it had they known what was in it?
I have some papers, and some data discs, that would be of no use to a burglar but that I would rather not lose. I keep them in a small safe (14 kg, 10 liter). I keep it out in the open and unlocked. The hope is that if it draws a burglar's attention, they will see that the contents are useless and either ignore it, or if they decide they like the safe itself dump the content and just take the safe.
If it were locked they might imagine all kinds of valuable, untraceable things I could be keeping.
So why even have a safe if I don't lock it? Because it is rated to keep papers and CD/DVD discs safe for one hour in a 1700℉ (930℃) fire.
> Do you think they would have taken it had they known what was in it?
No, they wouldn't. Like in your case, it contained some grade transcripts, PhD diploma (of sentimental value; no the university doesn't reissue them), and a valid passport from my previous country (which I revoked immediately... and PI in that passport had no relation to my PI in Norway.) and a backup disk with uncritical stuff.
> So why even have a safe if I don't lock it? Because it is rated to keep papers and CD/DVD discs safe for one hour in a 1700℉ (930℃) fire.
Again, fire-resistance was my motivation as well. But the door was sitting loose (i.e., it sat fast only when locked) and I was in doubt of how much fire protection it would offer if left unlocked.
No, they wouldn't. Like in your case, it contained some grade transcripts, PhD diploma (of sentimental value; no the university doesn't reissue them), and a valid passport from my previous country (which I revoked immediately... and PI in that passport had no relation to my PI in Norway.) and a backup disk with uncritical stuff.
> So why even have a safe if I don't lock it? Because it is rated to keep papers and CD/DVD discs safe for one hour in a 1700℉ (930℃) fire.
Again, fire-resistance was my motivation as well. But the door was sitting loose (i.e., it sat fast only when locked) and I was in doubt of how much fire protection it would offer if left unlocked.
Safes need to be bolted to the floor/wall as you discovered.
Yes, the safe was provisioned for bolting and came with parts... Due to its weight I truly believed nobody would bother with carrying a box of 40kg with unknown contents. On the other hand, people assume that safes contain valuables (jewelry, cash, etc.) so it's understandable. I had a small satisfaction of knowing that the contents of the safe, if they managed to open it, was utterly useless to them.
Lesson learned.
Lesson learned.
That's hard to do in an apartment sadly.
> birth certificate, "statsborgerbrevet" (confirmation of citizenship), old passport (as proof of previous citizenship), etc.
Aren't these kinds of documents just representations of the fact in Norway? That is, the document itself isn't important and you can just request a new one when needed?
Aren't these kinds of documents just representations of the fact in Norway? That is, the document itself isn't important and you can just request a new one when needed?
Yes, but, that depends on trusting your government.
Check out the UK's Windrush scandal for example (named for the Empire Windrush, a boat that brought the first of thousands of Carribean immigrants to Britain in the late 1940s). A government department destroyed the records of who it invited to come here, and then a subsequent government insisted that if people didn't have proof it had no way to be sure they weren't illegal immigrants and so they should be deported under what it called the "Hostile environment policy"! In some cases there are old people, grand parents and great-grandparents, worked in the UK all their lives and then declared "illegal" and sent "home" to a country they'd left as kids because the government deliberately destroyed its own records. Outrageous.
Check out the UK's Windrush scandal for example (named for the Empire Windrush, a boat that brought the first of thousands of Carribean immigrants to Britain in the late 1940s). A government department destroyed the records of who it invited to come here, and then a subsequent government insisted that if people didn't have proof it had no way to be sure they weren't illegal immigrants and so they should be deported under what it called the "Hostile environment policy"! In some cases there are old people, grand parents and great-grandparents, worked in the UK all their lives and then declared "illegal" and sent "home" to a country they'd left as kids because the government deliberately destroyed its own records. Outrageous.
Well. This is a very good reason indeed. I haven't had a reason to mistrust my government yet, but who knows what'll happen in the future.
Anyway, I wouldn't even know what documents to store as I simply don't have too many of them -- even birth certificates aren't a thing here.
Anyway, I wouldn't even know what documents to store as I simply don't have too many of them -- even birth certificates aren't a thing here.
Now that I have Norwegian passport, I'm indeed in the police database; when I applied for a new passport I only had to deliver the old one. But with important stuff like this, I don't fully trust IT systems. Extreme solar flare, sabotage, security breach, … there's a number of (unlikely, but possible) reasons why IT records might fail. In a fireproof safe, paper is still the best archival method.
And then, administrative f*ups are not without precedent as exemplified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Erased
IIRC the cover letter I got with "statsborgerbrevet", it is non-reissuable. It is handed out only to you in person, you can't even send your lawyer.
In the unlikely case I'd need a new birth certificate, I'd, I'd have to travel to my country of birth. Hassle.
Call me old-fashioned, but paper is still the best archival/backup medium for stuff of real importance.
And then, administrative f*ups are not without precedent as exemplified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Erased
IIRC the cover letter I got with "statsborgerbrevet", it is non-reissuable. It is handed out only to you in person, you can't even send your lawyer.
In the unlikely case I'd need a new birth certificate, I'd, I'd have to travel to my country of birth. Hassle.
Call me old-fashioned, but paper is still the best archival/backup medium for stuff of real importance.
>So where am I supposed to store such kind of valuables now?
If all the banks are dropping this service, there's probably other companies that will start doing it.
Could you drive to Sweden and store them there if you don't need them that often?
If all the banks are dropping this service, there's probably other companies that will start doing it.
Could you drive to Sweden and store them there if you don't need them that often?
> Could you drive to Sweden and store them there if you don't need them that often?
Someone mention Sweden isn't much better:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546346
Someone mention Sweden isn't much better:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546346
Ironically, there are companies offering long-term storage cubicles. I wonder how that's different from bank deposit boxes from the government's POV.
I can't help thinking this is short sighted of them.
In the days when banks needed branch networks and physical money the barriers to entry were high. We're now getting to the point where new entrants can, and increasingly are entering the marketplace.
I suppose you could argue that these new entrants are going to enter the online only marketplace anyway, but then how are the established banks going to differentiate themselves? What advantages do they have? Apart from a legacy Cobol codebase.
In the days when banks needed branch networks and physical money the barriers to entry were high. We're now getting to the point where new entrants can, and increasingly are entering the marketplace.
I suppose you could argue that these new entrants are going to enter the online only marketplace anyway, but then how are the established banks going to differentiate themselves? What advantages do they have? Apart from a legacy Cobol codebase.
"Wells Fargo had apparently tried to evict another customer for not keeping up with payments, and bank employees had mistakenly removed his box instead."
Wow. The incompetence is truly amazing.
Wow. The incompetence is truly amazing.
The only things that sit in my safe deposit are password protected GPG paper keys, revocation certificates, and, OTP recovery sheets.
There's a local bank near my workplace provides such a service, and I use them as a last resort of crypto id recovery. The downside is that they have a fingerprint system, but they do have a human agent to verify your identity.
There's a local bank near my workplace provides such a service, and I use them as a last resort of crypto id recovery. The downside is that they have a fingerprint system, but they do have a human agent to verify your identity.
Those are some pretty important "only things". If you're concerned enough to have thought about and acted on this, why would you entrust these things to an inscrutable third-party?
These are the 3rd parties that are held accountable by law and regulations.
On the one hand, obviously the bank was incompetent. But shame on the guy in the article for not having his items insured. This is a pretty standard rider in most home owner’s insurance policies (or an easy separate policy). Typically the policy is incredibly cheap if the items are stored in a safe deposit box, and if you take them out you call the insurance company and tell them that, the items remain insured but at a higher daily rate, and you call the insurance company and tell them when the items go back in the box, and the rate goes back to the low rate.
The article doesn't say the items weren't insured. Shame on you for victim-blaming.
It did talk about the sentimental value of a lifetime of collecting one-of-a-kind timepieces. That can't be replaced by an insurance payout.
It did talk about the sentimental value of a lifetime of collecting one-of-a-kind timepieces. That can't be replaced by an insurance payout.
It seems that one of the most important things to start with is a page right at the top of the box with "IF THIS BOX HAD TO BE OPENED" followed by notes about payment for the box, multiple contact methods including through several third parties (friends, family, employers), etc. with mailing addresses, phone numbers, email for each. Heck, include several pre-addressed letters or envelopes with (in the USA) "Forever" stamps already on them.
Work from a basis of "mistakes happen, how can I minimize the impact?"
Work from a basis of "mistakes happen, how can I minimize the impact?"
Whilst the security lapses are infuriating, I think this is really a domain for independent insurance cover.
I recently rented a self storage unit and they required that I have insurance (theirs or my homeowners). I don’t see much difference between a safe deposit box is and a self storage unit. I’m surprised the banks don’t require this—it would be less hassle for them and the customer.
That being said, it should be obvious to the customer that insurance is needed. Actually reading the lease agreement should provide enough information on determining your insurance requirements. If Wells Fargo only caps their liability at $500, then you should have a policy to cover the rest. The laughable $500 liability really goes to show you they don’t care and don’t stand behind their product.
That being said, it should be obvious to the customer that insurance is needed. Actually reading the lease agreement should provide enough information on determining your insurance requirements. If Wells Fargo only caps their liability at $500, then you should have a policy to cover the rest. The laughable $500 liability really goes to show you they don’t care and don’t stand behind their product.
At one point, I tried to rent a vehicle space at a self-storage facility (in the US). The lease had a clause that I would not store anything worth more than $1000; had I gone through with the rental and left my car as I had planned, I would have been in instant violation of the lease agreement.
I would want to buy that insurance from the bank. If I buy the insurance from somewhere else, then the bank doesn't really have a financial incentive to keep my stuff safe.
I don't think you do.
You want the risk (bank malfeasance) and risk manager (insurance company) widely separated (agency risk, moral & morale hazard, conflicts of interest, etc.).
The insurer should demand and receive rights to collect damages from the bank.
The bank itself can insure that risk independently.
You want the risk (bank malfeasance) and risk manager (insurance company) widely separated (agency risk, moral & morale hazard, conflicts of interest, etc.).
The insurer should demand and receive rights to collect damages from the bank.
The bank itself can insure that risk independently.
>The insurer should demand and receive rights to collect damages from the bank.
If that's possible then yes, that's great. But it sounds like banks refuse to do that. Some banks cap their liability at $500, or $25,000, or 10x annual rent, or 500x annual rent.
If that's possible then yes, that's great. But it sounds like banks refuse to do that. Some banks cap their liability at $500, or $25,000, or 10x annual rent, or 500x annual rent.
Banks' leverage negotiating with single customers is far higher than that with insurance carriers. I suspect terms would swing to the customers' favour.
Exactly, otherwise the insurer makes more profit at higher risks. As long as all the bank deposits are equally unsafe a group of private insurers can all charge a %... why wouldn't they improve long term returns by just subsidizing thieves learning cracking skills as long as the effects are evenly distributed?
Remember all those stero install places in the 80s-90s that also installed alarms? What other job were the installers trained for if they quit?
Remember all those stero install places in the 80s-90s that also installed alarms? What other job were the installers trained for if they quit?
How does the insurer profit more if the risk is higher? Higher risk means there is a much better chance that an insurance policy will pay out, the ideal for an insurance policy is a low risk of having to pay on the policy.
Because insurance prices are higher, and they make a percentage of the total payouts. All the insurers make the same actuarial calculations so there's no significant difference in pricing between them. All the banks pay the same insurance price and pass it on, because none of them care about security of your goods or information (according to the parent).
Interesting; I could never stomach actuarial textbooks well enough to gain much more than a high-level view of this industry. So higher-price policies are higher profit? I had always assumed the higher prices reflected the higher risk to the insurer, and even in a competitive market I would assume that the profit margin per policy would be roughly comparable between different types of policies.
Meaning the insurance premium will be higher? I mean if X keeps it, Y insures it, then X loses it, Y still has to pay up, so you're covered. The only difference between X=Y or X!=Y could be in the premium that Y commands.
Yeah, I would expect the premium to be higher if the insurer knows there's not much incentive for the bank to protect the item.
Also I consider a loss and insurance payout to be worse than no loss and no payout. Because it's a hassle to do the paperwork and rebuy items. And there might be sentimental items that a payout doesn't fully replace. So it's best to have a system that reduces the chance of a loss.
Also I consider a loss and insurance payout to be worse than no loss and no payout. Because it's a hassle to do the paperwork and rebuy items. And there might be sentimental items that a payout doesn't fully replace. So it's best to have a system that reduces the chance of a loss.
And in all likelihood the insurance will be provided by another company and sold by a different department.
Insurance is best when covering replaceable things: cars, houses, etc. Had this guy had insurance, he’d likely have been compensated (for sure better than nothing), but would still be without his watches.
In this particular instance, the victim was collecting these items not for their sentimental value, but for their monetary value, as he was planning to fund his retirement with them.
So here, I suspect the victim would have been compensated fairly -- and reasonably satisfied to receive payment -- in cash, as opposed to replacement of the lost items.
So here, I suspect the victim would have been compensated fairly -- and reasonably satisfied to receive payment -- in cash, as opposed to replacement of the lost items.
I live in Switzerland and even here you're usually not covered, despite the reputation for banking. You can buy separate insurance however and some non-bank safe deposit boxes come with insurance.
[deleted]
The banking industry is rife with malfeasance and incompetence, Wells Fargo especially [1]. This is yet another example.
[1] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/07/30/a-timeline-of-wells-...
[1] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/07/30/a-timeline-of-wells-...
Matt Levine covered this a few days ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/don-t-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/don-t-...
He actually repeatedly sites and quotes The NY Times article.
For the future it is "cites" rather than "sites".
Don't have access to a decommissioned mine? Nor, a deep underground military base?
Well, you're still in luck.
You can search how to bury your stuff, ie:
http://www.howtoburyyourstuff.com/
Really.
Well, you're still in luck.
You can search how to bury your stuff, ie:
http://www.howtoburyyourstuff.com/
Really.
After looking at that site I expect that if I could find the author's full name and googled it, the results would be full of posts at metal detecting forums.
The whole site appears to be really bad advice-- instructing you to bury large metal containers of your valuable stuff on land that isn't yours. It is the stuff of detectorists fantasies.
The whole site appears to be really bad advice-- instructing you to bury large metal containers of your valuable stuff on land that isn't yours. It is the stuff of detectorists fantasies.
>~ land that is/isn't yours
You have that the other way around...
> ..if I could find.. ..would be full.. ..fantasies.
Would you want to bet on how these guesses will pan out and see how this approach looks after sincere efforts to analyze it (for wealth preservation or other uses)?
> that site
There'rrr others worth looking at; probably others that contradict a good portion of it, or just have another point of view.
You have that the other way around...
> ..if I could find.. ..would be full.. ..fantasies.
Would you want to bet on how these guesses will pan out and see how this approach looks after sincere efforts to analyze it (for wealth preservation or other uses)?
> that site
There'rrr others worth looking at; probably others that contradict a good portion of it, or just have another point of view.
What have people been using for Yubikeys as an alternative? Installing safes onsite and self monitoring?
It depends on your threat model. If you're worried about sophisticated attackers physically breaking in to your place to steal a Yubikey to steal your accounts, you should also worry about them physically tampering with your computer to install malware, and thus need monitoring for that as well.
If you can't do the monitoring, and you face very advanced attackers like this, it's probably best to only use a laptop that you physically keep with you at all times, and then you can keep your Yubikey with you at all times too.
If you just want to protect against an attacker sophisticated enough to steal a Yubikey but not enough to install malware, then maybe instead of a second Yubikey in the safe deposit box, you could have an encrypted recovery code in the safe deposit box, and either memorize the password, or store the password on your computer.
I've never heard of attackers stealing a Yubikey though. More likely is the attacker will social engineer the website's support into giving over your account.
If you can't do the monitoring, and you face very advanced attackers like this, it's probably best to only use a laptop that you physically keep with you at all times, and then you can keep your Yubikey with you at all times too.
If you just want to protect against an attacker sophisticated enough to steal a Yubikey but not enough to install malware, then maybe instead of a second Yubikey in the safe deposit box, you could have an encrypted recovery code in the safe deposit box, and either memorize the password, or store the password on your computer.
I've never heard of attackers stealing a Yubikey though. More likely is the attacker will social engineer the website's support into giving over your account.
I’ve heard safe deposit boxes as an answer to the question “what if my house burns down with my yubikey/recovery code sheet in it, and none of my friends or family are as security-conscious as me so I can’t leave the spare with them”
Yes, fires are one of the main problems that a safe deposit box protects against. But Bucephalus355 seemed to be ignoring them already by considering just having a safe onsite.
Why would you want to store yubikeys securely, as opposed to recovery codes which you can print out in multiple copies? Store it in multiple semi-secure places. Unless you're running infra for an international corp, government, bank, or are likely to be physically targeted for some reason, you can likely store it in a folder on a shelf.
(And if you actually need to worry about things like that, then you've got (or should have) people who think of things like that for you)
(And if you actually need to worry about things like that, then you've got (or should have) people who think of things like that for you)
You can check to see the key is still there but you can't check to see if anyone has copied the codes. The key is meant to be not possible to duplicate.
There are many ways to make it easy to see things have been tampered with.
Greatest trick i heard is a simple paper seal, sprinkled with glitter, and then varnished with nail polish. Take pictures of the seal, and compare the seal against the picture.
...but not that many that guarantee/clarify if something was read/duplicated. That’s what a safe would buy you.
Lots of ways to set markers against all but seriously professional adversaries. I’d personally worry more about losing access to your key/combination.
Frankly your main threat is probably a fire or flood. Not a Russian agent breaking into your house.
Frankly your main threat is probably a fire or flood. Not a Russian agent breaking into your house.
No, I really mean "many ways". Just search for tamper evident products. There's a huge number of ways you can get that guarantee. For example this: https://harcor.com.au/products/security-seals/tamper-evident...
From the article is sounds like most of those cases are banks drilling open the boxes and putting the contents into storage. A better and stricter inventory system with strict and punitive regulation is what is needed, not some technical gadget.
Furthermore, electronics fail. If there’s some records including 2FA codes that you want to store in a safety deposit box, fire box, etc. I absolutely want at least paper backups whether or not I also have a Yubikey, SD card, etc. eg if I have a home inventory I absolutely want prints even if it’s also in the cloud someplace.
I went through this recently. It's such a PITA. I ended up with physical copies in 3 different places because all of a sudden redundancy is a reality.
You think you’re reasonably well backed up until the sh*t hits the fan and you realize everything is hanging by a much thinner thread than you thought. Recent events I experienced have added really working through record backups to my todo list.
I keep paper copies of the backup 2FA codes for Google and LastPass in my wallet and have been pretty happy with that strategy.
A couple of years ago, I had my wallet fall out of my pocket while I was on a boat.
My phone was back at the dock safe and dry so I had my primary authenticator. And I probably had printed copies somewhere at home.
I've been much more diligent since then about making sure there are copies and that they're accessible.
A couple of years ago, I had my wallet fall out of my pocket while I was on a boat.
My phone was back at the dock safe and dry so I had my primary authenticator. And I probably had printed copies somewhere at home.
I've been much more diligent since then about making sure there are copies and that they're accessible.
I think the parent post was asking where someone would securely store a hardware device like a yubikey that, for example, contains the only copy of a root key—as opposed to using such a hardware device as part of a security system.
In a safe? Buy a half-decent one.
You should align your storage choice to your contingency plan. For a lost root your contingency plan should involve distrusting and replacing the hierarchy underneath the root. To the extent that you wish to avoid executing the plan, buy a better safe so you are less likely to need the plan.
It is OK for your contingency plan to include "Go bankrupt and cease to exist" if you are any sort of corporate entity.
You should align your storage choice to your contingency plan. For a lost root your contingency plan should involve distrusting and replacing the hierarchy underneath the root. To the extent that you wish to avoid executing the plan, buy a better safe so you are less likely to need the plan.
It is OK for your contingency plan to include "Go bankrupt and cease to exist" if you are any sort of corporate entity.
I'm a bit confused by why you responded to me with this.
"Installing safes onsite and self monitoring" was literally the example given by the person asking for other suggestions.
"Installing safes onsite and self monitoring" was literally the example given by the person asking for other suggestions.
Sorry, probably the tangle of threads caused me to disconnect that from your response, as you say my response is useless in light of this.
I would say nowhere. Even in a reliable safety deposit box that may not exist or be convenient, the hardware can fail. And actually the odds of that are almost certainly greater than your safety deposit box being breached.
I see your point that hardware keys can fail, but that is a completely separate issue—print it out and shove that paper in there as well, redundant copies in multiple locations, etc... it is just a standard backup problem. The hardware key is about ease and safety when you are using it, not as some perfect storage.
In any case, the issue of securing something that you only want to use in extremely rare cases is still an issue—"nowhere" isn't a solution to that problem, although I can see the argument that hardware keys aren't the best choice of storage medium (although as an efficiency measure it could be useful to have one in there as well so you can go quickly if it works).
In any case, the issue of securing something that you only want to use in extremely rare cases is still an issue—"nowhere" isn't a solution to that problem, although I can see the argument that hardware keys aren't the best choice of storage medium (although as an efficiency measure it could be useful to have one in there as well so you can go quickly if it works).
Yes. Paper is best though.
It is also sometimes in your interest to get things in the custody of an individual, ideally your attorney. If the owner of a deposit box becomes aware of your death, they will seal it until a court order is obtained.
It is also sometimes in your interest to get things in the custody of an individual, ideally your attorney. If the owner of a deposit box becomes aware of your death, they will seal it until a court order is obtained.
At least in California, the bank opened it for me (as personal representative) so that a bank employee and I could inventory the contents.
My aunt was a hoarder. At that point, I was actually relieved that the box was empty and I wouldn't have to go through the process of claiming the contents.
My aunt was also somebody who bought gold and silver, something that was promoted heavily to people in conservative Orange County California when Obama became president and end times were near. Chase made it very clear that I was basically storing things at my own risk. I could deposit US coins from the 1880s at face value of $20 and get FDIC insurance. Instead, since they were about $1200 each at the time, I put them in the safe deposit box.
Before that, in Oregon, my dad died but I was on the list of people allowed to use the box so I had access. That might be an option if there's somebody you really trust.
The banks do charge about $100 to drill the lock if you lose the keys. It's possible that you could have somebody authorized to use the box but not give them a key.
My aunt was a hoarder. At that point, I was actually relieved that the box was empty and I wouldn't have to go through the process of claiming the contents.
My aunt was also somebody who bought gold and silver, something that was promoted heavily to people in conservative Orange County California when Obama became president and end times were near. Chase made it very clear that I was basically storing things at my own risk. I could deposit US coins from the 1880s at face value of $20 and get FDIC insurance. Instead, since they were about $1200 each at the time, I put them in the safe deposit box.
Before that, in Oregon, my dad died but I was on the list of people allowed to use the box so I had access. That might be an option if there's somebody you really trust.
The banks do charge about $100 to drill the lock if you lose the keys. It's possible that you could have somebody authorized to use the box but not give them a key.
In New York, the box is sealed once the death is known to the bank, and cannot be opened without the probate court’s permission.
It creates problems when folks store their wills in the box!
It creates problems when folks store their wills in the box!
I don't know how people who have jewelry worth millions usually act.
But honestly... it strikes me as a bit odd that you'd put objects worth many millions in a box that costs a $246 fee per year and then expect high safety standards.
But honestly... it strikes me as a bit odd that you'd put objects worth many millions in a box that costs a $246 fee per year and then expect high safety standards.
They're not putting millions in a $246 box, they're putting millions in a bank. The same way you might put all your savings in a bank account that not only costs you nothing, the bank actually pays you for it (via interest). So if tomorrow your life savings disappear would the "what did you expect from a service you were paid to receive?" question seem reasonable?
Lobby and interest groups are strong enough that laws that actually look after the customer rather than the corporation are few and far between.
Lobby and interest groups are strong enough that laws that actually look after the customer rather than the corporation are few and far between.
The money is different because you're actually lending it to the bank. The government guarantees you'll get it back (up to some limit) in most countries, but that's why they can afford to operate this business.
You are not loaning the valuables in a safe deposit box to the bank, they're just storing them, which is why it costs money. Maybe it should cost more money.
You are not loaning the valuables in a safe deposit box to the bank, they're just storing them, which is why it costs money. Maybe it should cost more money.
I don't own millions, but I guess if I did then no matter if I'd put money worth millions on the bank or jewelry worth millions I'd have someone with a legal degree reading the ToS for me to tell me if it's an appropriate offer for that amount of money.
Yes and no... The only valid answer anyone with a law degree and experience could ever give you when dealing with a bank is "you're on your own with anything that could conceivably happen even if it's not in the document you sign".
Otherwise you will never assume the conditions can change without prior notice (none that they can prove anyway, signature on receipt is too cumbersome for the bank it seems), that the risk you're taking comes from the bank, that the bank can drill the safe and take everything inside, or that the bank can take your stuff "by mistake", no notice, and get to keep it. It's common sense. The courts disagree. They see all this as perfectly legal because it is. That's what lobbies buy you.
> Banks typically argue - and courts have in many cases agreed - that customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms, even if they leased their box years or even decades earlier.
> And the scant protections offered by state laws are often simply ignored
If you want to see how ridiculous it sounds when applied to another industry with slightly shallower pockets imagine this: after paying all your premiums for insurance the insurance company changes the conditions to say "covers 0% of the damage" then steals your car and keeps it.
Otherwise you will never assume the conditions can change without prior notice (none that they can prove anyway, signature on receipt is too cumbersome for the bank it seems), that the risk you're taking comes from the bank, that the bank can drill the safe and take everything inside, or that the bank can take your stuff "by mistake", no notice, and get to keep it. It's common sense. The courts disagree. They see all this as perfectly legal because it is. That's what lobbies buy you.
> Banks typically argue - and courts have in many cases agreed - that customers are bound by the bank’s most-current terms, even if they leased their box years or even decades earlier.
> And the scant protections offered by state laws are often simply ignored
If you want to see how ridiculous it sounds when applied to another industry with slightly shallower pockets imagine this: after paying all your premiums for insurance the insurance company changes the conditions to say "covers 0% of the damage" then steals your car and keeps it.
What would you do if you had jewelry worth millions? At first blush, a safe deposit box seems utterly logical. Even after reading the article, I can't think of any alternative other than avoiding Wells Fargo.
Buy a safe in your own house, and then get insurance?
Or rent a safe box and get separate insurance?
Or rent a safe box and get separate insurance?
Insurance can't replace family heirlooms or unique works of art. Where do you keep this stuff safe?
> Where do you keep this stuff safe?
On display in your home or a museum. A painting that can’t be seen is just a stained piece of canvas.
On display in your home or a museum. A painting that can’t be seen is just a stained piece of canvas.
That may be worth a lot of money due to perceived value being the thing that gives it worth, versus aesthetics or whatever you get out of looking at a painting.
Safety is a relative measure. Especially if your objective is to enjoy an article rather than stick it in a hopefully secure box somewhere.
Well that's great but it doesn't answer the question. Let's say it's something you don't need to enjoy except when you want to pull it out of storage.
Well, you either store it securely or have someone else do it for you. With the caveat that no amount of security systems and safes are going to be 100% effective against all manner of theft, accident, and natural disaster. In addition to having insurance, you just have to evaluate the options and make your trade offs.
If you have millions of dollars you store it in your house and spend the money to fireproof and thiefproof it.
[deleted]
I would not be surprised if some jewelers offered secure storage of this sort as a service once you hit a certain level. There may also be a significant difference in the services offered in "consumer" banking and "private banking for high net worth individuals."
What? Banks stealing from their customers? Why never. But seriously, who is surprised? That's what banks do. They steal. They steal small amounts in wrong fees. They steal huge amounts in bailouts. They steal medium amounts in between. And of course there is no regulation so there's no recourse. How surprising that an unregulated industry steals and fucks over its customers to the largest extent possible. Not. It's the American way. For people that have no morals and don't care about fucking over and hurting others, making money is easy especially in the US. I sometimes wish I fell into that category. I'd make millions as do all these entities and people with no conscience. The corporation is the perfect vehicle for such actions. But unlike the people running these banks, the people regulating them, and the people advocating against regulation, I have a conscience that doesn't allow me to get rich in this way. Expecting banks to behave in such a way is madness, however.
North American banks are regulated too, just in a very different (and more archaic way) from Eurasian system.
If the bank is not competent enough to assign unique numbers to each box in the first place, of course they aren't going to be competent enough to only ever empty the correct one of several boxes numbered #105, or to handle to contents safely.
It's difficult to comprehend how the bank thought having non-unique numbers would be workable. If non-unique deposit box numbers seems ok, why not non-unique bank account numbers? Or why even go up to #105, just number them all #1?
I'm always fascinated when people find a way to undermine a simple, workable system and end up with something worse than no system, or the state of affairs before the system existed.