Jump to Comments

ATM machines have always instilled fear in me. The sinking feeling would usually begin to stir just before I hit the ‘Display Balance’ button, followed by the customary protracted, angst-filled pause as the cash machine retrieved the sorry data (probably enjoying a stifled laugh and a nudge with its Link network peers), after which the inevitable cold ball of dread would coalesce in my stomach as the paltry figure of my bank balance appeared on the screen. Now, however, they are working on new ways of giving me The Fear.

Using an ATM the other day I noticed some new additions to the well-practiced proceedings. On inserting my cash card I was presented with a number of warnings and cautionary advice – I was warned in bold text to enter my PIN number ‘CAREFULLY!’ and subsequently treated to a diagram of the ‘Keypad Cupping Technique’ – I can only surmise that the animations of a hoodied teenager peering over my shoulder and a speaker chanting ‘he’s behind you’ will be introduced at a later date.

In the past, when I would witness other people using the Keypad Cupping Technique (perhaps they knew I was looking!) I would casually assume that the cuppee was just a nervous Daily Mail reader. But now it seems this kernel of suspicion has grown in me too. Now, before entering my PIN, I feel the need to cast an evaluating glance over the queue behind me, considering whether the old lady behind me is concealing a hidden camera in her blue-rinse, or whether that bloke’s lazy eye is actually the cold, calculating eye of a master criminal intent on stealing my PIN and thus the contents of my account and then my whole identity.

A few years ago the idea of ‘Shoulder-Surfing’ (as the art of PIN-pinching has been named) seemed funny to me. It has an air of amateurish hopelessness about it, like the thick kid trying to copy your algebra equations during a maths exam. But perhaps I was just ignorant about what is now such a well-documented crime. Living in a low crime area and never having been the victim of any kind fraud or card theft and, furthermore, knowing few people who have, perhaps I was merely unaware of the serious constant threat of PIN thievery.

Today, however, we are inundated with information, statistics, warnings, adverts, government appeals, leaflets, bank literature, and websites concerning credit cards and identity fraud – it is a pervasive feature of the media landscape and there is no way of getting away from it. It is something we are all told to fear. Yet other types of fraud committed against individuals, such as boiler room rip-offs and other scams, are just as prevalent in society but receive a fraction of the attention. Why does one type of fraud hog the limelight? Why, too, are the banks now increasingly keen to flag up the dangers of card fraud, as demonstrated by the aforementioned glut of ATM warnings?

Before it was rolled out across the UK, Chip and PIN technology was sold to the public by the government and the media as an effective and seemingly inevitable method of cutting card fraud. The technology cost around £1.1 billion to implement (cost passed on to the consumer, one would imagine) and was predicted to reduce card fraud by some 60%.

From the outset, however, wildly differing statistics were bandied about in the media either decrying the new technology as an abject failure or a storming success in the fight against fraud. And now, several years on, the security of the system seems even less certain, with caveats coming from the very groups who promoted the technology in the first place. Have the banks lost faith in the infallibility of their precious Chip and PIN system? Or is there something else going on?

It seems that there are plans afoot to impose a certain point of view on the British public – and it is being pushed by both the public and private sector. It is a notion that the Labour government has been circulating for years, ever since it announced plans to introduce a new ID card scheme. The essence of this idea is that we need tighter security systems to protect us against identity fraud, financial crimes, terrorism etc – or in other words – we would all be safer and happier with the widespread introduction of biometric technology and the collation of personal data into huge databases.

Gordon Brown, a great champion of this technology, has faced a great deal of criticism regarding his advocacy of the Labour government’s controversial ID card scheme. The arguments against the introduction of biometric ID cards are comprehensive and wide-ranging: Not only are their incontrovertible objections on the grounds of privacy and human rights, but also fundamental problems with the perceived security of the technology, widespread concern over the scheme’s cost (which some current estimates put as high as £5.5 bn), the higher potential for fraud (especially against lower socio-economic groups) as well as countless other convincing arguments.

Yet although report after report is published refuting the benefits of biometric ID cards and despite the public’s lack of support, such opposition has only managed to stall the Government’s scheme; thus, 2012 will witness the introduction of ID cards for all passport applicants (originally planned for 2008) while non-EU foreign nationals working within the UK being issued the cards this year.

But this is in the public sector. Within the private sector there will be little chance to oppose the introduction of biometric systems – all the arguments against the ID card scheme apply, but we will have even less power to resist. Over the last few years banks across the globe have been implementing biometric systems: many Japanese banks have been using biometric technology for their cash and credit cards since 2004, last year the technology was introduced in India and many other countries have also witnessed the biometric-isation of their finances including Switzerland and many parts of South America. The introduction of this technology within UK banks may happen sooner than you think – Siemens, the European engineering and communications conglomerate, is currently in talks with major banks in the UK and Europe regarding the introduction of fingerprint scanning technology for card transactions which could be in place by the end of the year.

The private and public sector utilisation of biometric technology may not be mutually exclusive either. Two years ago, Gordon Brown was using the seeming inevitability of the private sector’s adoption of biometric cards as reason for the government to go ahead with their ID card plans – furthermore, he promoted a standardisation of any government and commercial cards , effectively pooling all personal information on citizens into one giant database allowing governments and banks greater access and more control over personal biometric data.

Is this really what we want from the future of our finances – another flawed and overrated technology introduced in the name of protection, and a giant databases of personal information at the hands of governmental and commercial organisations? If that isn’t scary enough, instead of being condemned to eternal vigilance against suspicious-looking gawpers, we will soon be on the lookout for those clutching a pair of secateurs or poorly concealed ice-cream scoops with nefarious designs, not on our PIN codes, but on our fingerprints and eyeballs. I’ll stick with the shoulder-surfers thanks.