[kartan]

> 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?

[7952]

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.

[raverbashing]

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