>> People just give them money as a business model.

You dont actually give them money...you loan them money when you do a deposit. That is why they pay you interest, and that comes with the risk of loans to another party.

A little detail they are happy to omit and they are happy to let people talk about: "I have money in the bank", that you of course ...dont have.

> Why would banks be motivated to care?

Because courts have made them pay the curtomer their losses when the customer (not the bank) was scammed/hacked/etc.

> Why would banks be motivated to care?

Unfortunately, banks can be held liable for customers getting scammed. Even if they win in the end, they have to make the customer whole first no matter what [1].

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/verbraucher/eugh-konto-...

Banks are motivated to care, but in the direction they currently do. They can be on the hook for making up losses. Whether you as an ultra leet hax0r can run rooted/jailbroken devices without getting owned, they are worried about your non-leet parents doing the same and having their retirement accounts drained by North Korea. I know it sounds far fetched, but it is a plausible scenario that I heard recently

The same banks that typically embrace the 3 biggest signs of security stupidity:

- max length of passwords (not talking about lengths that would pose a DoS threat, talking limits like 20 characters)

- incredibly constrained character set for passwords (“your password can’t contain a quotation mark, only alphanumeric and these specific 10 punctuation marks”)

- “security” questions (can we just ban these already? Knowing that my childhood dog’s name was Bingo should NOT give you the ability to change my brokerage password.)