example when
clicking on a [Buy now] link, you need to turn your PC –
temporarily, and at short notice – into a secure cryptographic
device which acts as an important component of the
transaction.
So it is hardly surprising that the design of such a system
makes certain assumptions about the state of the PC, and the
awareness of the user. And it is hardly surprising that the PC,
or the user, or both, sometimes let the system down.
Q. Is this really unsurprising? Don’t the banks owe it to us to
do better?
A. This paper isn’t really about the social contract which
banks do or don’t have with their customers, so we’ll just look
very quickly at both sides of the argument.
Critics of the banks say that the banks aren’t doing enough.
They say it is the banks who have the greater interest in
Internet commerce, because it allows them to close branches,
lay off tellers and front-of-house staff, and thus to save an
awful lot of money. This money, they argue, should already
have been used to make Internet banking much safer than it is.
The banks, on the other hand, can argue at least as reasonably
that the popularity of on-line commerce is driving the need
for Internet banking (eBay, QED). They can also point out
that their younger customers not only much prefer Internet
banking but that they expect it to be cheap, and easy, and
accessible from anywhere. If the bank cuts off their Internet
banking in the interests of safety, and requires them to visit a
branch to sort out any possible problems (a reasonable
security precaution, you might think), this
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24