Banking apps and their root checking bul*****

[jaclaz]

@dixel

EU directives are, generally speaking, mandatory.

Each state must make a local Law according to directives, and in this has the "certain amount of leeway".

Thus through the mechanism of transposition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(law)

each state will have a local Law conforming to the directive, which may well be slightly different but still respecting the principles of the EU directive, anyway here the issue is not even in this supposed "leeway", it is in the pratical implementation (still according to the EU directive and to the corresponding local Law) that each bank might do differently, even in a same EU country.

There is no such thing as a federal law, this is not the US, it is not a federation of states, it is a community or confederation.

jaclaz

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by jaclaz
Typos

[Dixel]

6 hours ago, jaclaz said:

EU directives are, generally speaking, mandatory.

 

 

jaclaz, I don't know about Italy , but since this nice fella lives in Slovenia ...

 

Federal laws in Slovenia now are just "laws" without "Federal". 

 

"The Constitution was adopted on December 23, 1991 and hereinafter the laws started to pass; until they were put into force, the old Yugoslav Republic and

Federal laws and rules have been applicable."

3.1.3. Laws

Laws/acts are the main general law acts in a law system. Hierarchically they are subordinated to the Constitution and International treaties signed and ratified by the National Assembly and have to be in accordance with them (the principle of constitutionality). The laws are adopted by National assembly according to the procedure described below (sector 4.2.4.). 

In Slovenia there are no different types of laws (as there are, e.g. in federal states; federal laws and state laws) but in practice also a type of law called code (zakonik, kodeks) is used.

https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Slovenia.html

P.S.

So even if there is a law, that was passed according to this directive , let them show it . I can't find any local Slovenian law with such requerement, no matter how hard I try. Can you ?

Edited December 22, 2020 by Dixel
P.S.

[jaclaz]

Well, do you speak Slovenian?

Are you looking for a Slovenian Law in English?

Anyway:

https://www.rppp.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190711_ZPlaSSIED-and-PSD2-provisions-on-SCA.pdf

You should look for "Zakon o plačilnih storitvah, storitvah izdajanja elektronskega denarja in plačilnih sistemih" (“ZPlaSSIED”), namely around article #153.

Please do not use - unless really *needed* - huge fonts, it seems like you are shouting.

Should you be, by any chance, actually shouting (at me) please stop.

jaclaz

[D.Draker]

On 12/22/2020 at 6:06 AM, jaclaz said:

You should look for "Zakon o plačilnih storitvah, storitvah izdajanja elektronskega denarja in plačilnih sistemih" (“ZPlaSSIED”), namely around article #153.

Please do not use - unless really *needed* - huge fonts, it seems like you are shouting.

Should you be, by any chance, actually shouting (at me) please stop.

jaclaz

Dear jaclaz , excuse me , where exactly did you see "huge fonts" in his prev. post ? I can see none . He just made copy/paste from that article about Slovenian Laws. Perhaps something wrong with the formatting in your browser ? 

Sometimes it's really strange how easily people get wrong impressions . And I don't see any "shouting" too. It seems the main poster is not reacting at all , perhaps he is not interested anymore , so I have a suggestion , just to stop , for both of you . How about this idea ? Dear jaclaz , please don't get me wrong . I'll say in advance . I'm not "shouting" at either of you . And I'm using the default fonts too , like @Dixel. As for the language , it is one of the main requirements here , English only . Thanks.

Edited December 24, 2020 by D.Draker
for jaclaz

[jaclaz]

I don't know.

On my browser, for *some reason* posts by both you and Dixel are partially "huge". It may well be an artifact of the browser I use, Chrome, actually Iron, 43.0.2300.0, on XP SP2 (yes I know) to access MSFN. but it is "queer" that it happens only to posts by you two .

Maybe you are using a same browser?

I am attaching a couple screenshot to show you what I see.

jaclaz

 

[dencorso]

32 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

It may well be an artifact of the browser I use

I guess so. I don't see that either in Chrome  87.0.4280.88 (on 8.1 at work or 7 Ultimate SP1 at home) or in Basilisk 52 (roytam1´s, about 1 month old) on XPSP3 (with all POSReady 2009 updates)... 

[siria]

jaclaz said:
> On my browser, for *some reason* posts by both you and Dixel are partially "huge".

I've been wondering too what weird formatting they're using for big chunks of the posting text, and what sense this should make!
But thought everyone else (=people with younger browersers) sees it in a meaningful manner ;-) Noticed it only five days ago, but in my case (old K-M) the size is the same, here I only see the different background color. Like in your screenshot too, an ever so slightly darker white, hardly noticeable at all, only when looking very closely. First wondered if it's perhaps textmarker tag, although usually yellow? But source code reveals it's a span, with inline color. Then added this to my user-css to see it easier:

span[style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"] {border: 1px dashed gray;}

(Little test if forum accepts if I manually input a span with a background color too)
.

Edited December 23, 2020 by siria

[Wunderbar98]

Just 'view source' of this page and filter 'find any local Slovenian law'. The first instance does not have obvious tags, additional instances include 'font-size:1.3rem'. Chrome must display this, other browsers maybe ignore.

span style="font-size:1.3rem;"according to this directive , let them show it . I can't find any local Slovenian law with such requerement, no matter how hard I try. Can you ?/span


Edit: tag arrows removed to get this silly stuff to display

Edited December 23, 2020 by Wunderbar98

[UCyborg]

  Is the old way of accessing still complaint with the SCA? Customer's knowledge - password, customer's possession - certificate.

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Iron, 43.0.2300.0

This one should still render it properly with default configuration at least (just the background color, shouldn't be oversized).

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

XP SP2 (yes I know)

Sure you do.

43 minutes ago, siria said:

Noticed it only five days ago, but in my case (old K-M) the size is the same, here I only see the different background color.

I don't only notice it, but it's actually irritating to my eyes.

Edit:

7 minutes ago, Wunderbar98 said:

The first instance does not have obvious tags, additional instances include 'font-size:1.3rem'. Chrome must display this, other browsers maybe ignore.

That's interesting, so only Iron on @jaclaz's machine takes this into account for some reason?

Edited December 23, 2020 by UCyborg

[D.Draker]

8 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I don't know.

On my browser, for *some reason* posts by both you and Dixel are partially "huge". It may well be an artifact of the browser I use, Chrome, actually Iron, 43.0.2300.0, on XP SP2 (yes I know) to access MSFN. but it is "queer" that it happens only to posts by you two .

Maybe you are using a same browser?

I'm terribly sorry , I don't know what's going on with your Windows XP and older browsers . And I'm sure can't be responsible for unsupported browsers ! BTW , our dear dencorso confirmed that everything is okay. Here is my screenshot , I've made it especially for you with older Chrome 55 (couldn't find any older in my archive). Fonts are okay , formatting is okay too. Perhaps it's the glitch with those tags , because Dixel made a copy/paste from the page directly , and I pressed "quote" , so the tags went to my post too. Or one the posters is right and we are all using newest browsers on Vista . I'm on a fairly new Firefox . Things I've tried , I typed in Wordpad , and made text only default formatting , then pasted it here . Now my text looks okay in your Iron 43 ?

[Dixel]

On 12/22/2020 at 6:06 AM, jaclaz said:

Please do not use - unless really *needed* - huge fonts, it seems like you are shouting.

Should you be, by any chance, actually shouting (at me) please stop.

jaclaz

Sorry , it's a bug with formatting in older browsers. If you're on XP , I suggest you try 360Explorer 13 with disabled telemetry (!), it's on Chromium 86. Also , Firefox 52 doesn't exhibit such behaviour on XP SP3 , as dencorso wrote. And about the other guy , I think he just made a copy/paste from my post , maybe he was feeling lazy to type it all by himself .

 

Anyway , I remember dencorso wrote about younger generations being over-sensitive, it seems that it also applies to some other generations too...

 

[siria]

Or perhaps the bug is in modern browsers only...?

The riddle is, how or why are you or your browsers inserting special formatting for some normal parts of text, and why "should" the existence of those special parts remain invisible for human readers (or perhaps not, and "invisiblity" in your modern browsers is the bug?), and why are those mysterious tags not contained in other members' posts? Riddles over riddles... ;-)

Weirder and weirder... and now noticed on jaclaz 2nd screenshot that some text parts are only colored, and others colored+BIG. In source code:
span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:1.3rem;"

But at least mystery #5 (why different tags from server for different readers?) is now cleared up for me. All readers do get the same source. I only do not see the SIZE because my own browser is too old for rem sizes, and had previously only checked the computed source. But that means all medium and modern browsers should show it bigger.

Dixel said:

And about the other guy , I think he just made a copy/paste from my post , maybe he was feeling lazy to type it all by himself

So perhaps copy/pasting embeds all the original formatting too, in your modern browser? Might very well be.
But this would mean the colors+sizes are meant to show up visibly for yourself too, especially in modern browsers. Edited December 24, 2020 by siria

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, siria said:

Or perhaps the bug is in modern browsers only...?

The riddle is, how or why are you or your browsers inserting special formatting for some normal parts of text, and why "should" the existence of those special parts remain invisible for human readers (or perhaps not, and "invisiblity" in your modern browsers is the bug?), and why are those mysterious tags not contained in other members' posts? Riddles over riddles... ;-)
Weirder and weirder... and now noticed on jaclaz 2nd screenshot ....

No , just read the previous poster and look at his screenshot . Even with the ancient Chrome 55 such things don't happen. And Chrome 55 is like 4 years old (!)

The riddle with tags is solved , scroll back. He obviously copy/pasted my first post and inserted it in his reply . And the tags and formatting got attached because his browser (obviously) is modern too . I'm certain if he had an ancient one , he'd just copied it in 'plain text' mode . Anyway , who is who and which browser is using can be clearly seen by the moderators , including the IP and a ton of other info. So ?

[jaclaz]

No, this post here (not the quoted part) shows "strange" (see attached screenshot):

So, still, it is "curious".

Which browser are you (Dixel and D.Draker) using?

I remember similar issues years ago (and on another forum) about a user that for *some reasons* wrote posts in a word processor and then copied/pasted it,

@D.Draker

Your last post  is "normal" (and the last two oes by Dixel as well), so definitely it is the combination of your browser with the stupid board software that creates the "glitch". 

jaclaz

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by jaclaz

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

No, this post here (not the quoted part) shows "strange" (see attached screenshot):

So, still, it is "curious".

Which browser are you (Dixel and D.Draker) using?

I remember similar issues years ago (and on another forum) about a user that for *some reaons* wrote posts in a word processor and then copied/pasted it,

jaclaz

 

Are you on the same old Chrome 43 ? I just checked on 55 version too , no issues at all . Just won't double post because D.Draker already made the screenshot with 55. To answer your question , I'm using Chrome 88 . And I think D.Draker already said that he is using some new Firefox. How come dencorso has no troubles at all too ? 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Dixel
a typo