Paternalism Not Needed in Online Banking
So who is responsible for online banking security, especially when a bank offers free to the customer security software? Are we so collectively naive that we would think a single piece of software will secure transactions in spite of other vulnerabilities? (Think bolted door next to a broken window, which would you use to break in?). This is the question at the center of a debate about online banking and bank provided security measures.
Liam Tung argues in The 'secret': Banks are freaked out by security that ING Direct and Trusteer aren't giving customers all the facts because the bank does not essentially say, no matter what you do, you're not completely secure; risks continue to exist and there is nothing we can do to eliminate all of them. In other words, we online banking customers need a written warning of common sense.
The argument should not be about whether or not a particular measure is 100% effective or not, it should be about the best ways to reduce the cost fraud. I'm not a fan of ING Direct's approach but not because it isn't a 100% solution. I think there are better ways to approach the problem as I said earlier. Banks need to be up front about the limits of their security measures but that's no reason to stop using them.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
