Last week we asked you who should take the blame for the ridiculous HMRC data loss stuff up...
...and at the moment it's clear that most of you think that good old Gordon Brown himself should be the one to take the can over the whole sorry episode (although Steve McClaren and aliens were popular choces too!)
But perhaps a bigger question to ask is who should pay back the cost of any fraud?
That question seems to be the reason for the argument that is currently going on between the Government and the banks after the loss of 25 million child benefit records.
Both the Chancellor Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have told MPs that the banks will repay customers who lose any money. But in a letter the banks have told the Chancellor that he should reimburse them for any costs incurred.
The letter is signed by the British Bankers' Association, the Building Societies Association and the Payment Service APACS, which handles the security of money transfers.
The letter has warned Alistair Darling that they will refund their customers to start with, but if there is widespread theft due to the blunder by HMRC, the banks will expect the Government to reimburse them.
Sandra Quinn of APACS commented on their stance:
"Under the Banking Code we protect customers. And customers need to know that they have one point of contact if they're concerned and that is their bank or building society.
"But there is a separate issue about long-term liability. And if there is evidence that the loss of this data does lead to widespread fraud we will want to pick this up with the Chancellor and the Revenue. They won't be surprised by that."
She also stated that the banks did not hear about the data loss until Friday 16 November, more than
four weeks after the disc was sent and more than three weeks after a senior Revenue official became aware of the loss!
"We'd have liked to have known earlier because the earlier we knew the sooner we could take steps," she said.
Yes, that would have helped wouldn't it?
And, despite assurances by Alistair Darling that all the 7.3 million bank accounts affected would be "flagged" so they could be monitored for "irregular activity", Sandra Quinn said in no way could that be guaranteed.
She said every bank and building society had been told which of their accounts was affected and would sample accounts to monitor activity for any signs of fraud. But she added that individuals should also check their bank statements carefully themselves.
So, the question isn't just who to blame, but, if fraud does happen, who should pay up?
Why not let us know in the comments?
5 ways to protect your personal data