tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9787865.post8130677311913017022..comments2008-05-10T01:00:14.460+08:00Waleed Hanafihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01688647550018227829noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9787865.post-22285787912943279892008-05-10T01:00:00.000+08:002008-05-10T01:00:00.000+08:00UOB's IT is outsourced wholesale to mini india office at tampines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9787865.post-36646453241581288602008-05-09T23:14:00.000+08:002008-05-09T23:14:00.000+08:00Yes, I get that the intention may have been different, but the effect is to create a ridiculous and meaningless clause that is forced on customers.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have worked in a lot of IT departments and they never draft T&C documents. This is pure lawyer.Waleed Hanafihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01688647550018227829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9787865.post-67822342450596738202008-05-09T22:59:00.000+08:002008-05-09T22:59:00.000+08:00Just offhand, and without having read the related literature, I think what they meant to say (but obviously failed to convey), is that changing to a new password does not absolve the account owner of transactions carried out when the old password was still valid. Even then, a somewhat redundant clause to insert. One can only surmise it must have been drafted in probably by the IT department (no offence to technology folks per se, except perhaps for the one at UOB that thought of this one).Ben Foonoreply@blogger.com