Printable View
Perhaps this is a case where the government regulator of the banks should force them to introduce secure systems, for the general benefit of the customers. As Dr Dee suggests, it is probably in the real interest of the banks to do so anyway, and it is only because they are adopting a short-sighted view of the costs and benefits that they are not doing so.
Rocker
Then you would probably see online banking systems shutting down left, right and centre!
Banks only ever and always do things that are in their own interests (or the interests of their shareholders as it is put these days). The whole push to ATMs, phone banking and now online banking was not, as some people might think, a way of delivering better service. It was to get people out of the branches. First they got people hooked on it, then they started putting up the charges for teller transactions so that it was too expensive to go back to the old habits, then the fees for ATM withdrawals and online transactions were introduced.
Someone did the sums and worked out that a teller transaction cost the bank something like 10 times what it cost to do an ATM withdrawal. The end result and logical conclusion of that is what you see today. If it suddenly becomes more expensive to provide online banking, it will suddenly become not in the Bank's interests to offer it.
SilentC,
You might want to call me some sort of pinko, but I can't see why the government cannot force the banks to provide proper security for internet banking as a condition of their retaining their licence to trade as banks. This is not America, where the government tends to be in the pockets of the big corporations, at least while there is a Republican administration.
They could easily frighten the banks into submission by threatening to open up the Australian banking market to competition from overseas banks, many of which manage to make a profit without charging the exorbitant fees that Australian banks do.
Rocker
So this morning MrsMidge rocks into one of the big three to organise some US Dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
2 days by phone banking, 10 over the counter (of course we need it by Friday which is a bit less than 10)
We haven't been set up for phone banking, so the ever so pleasant young lady at the counter (teller) assisted, then dialled the number, guided my beloved through the process right up to the point where the person in Melbourne on the other end of the phone said "you can't do that"...... at that point the "live" assistant confirmed one could, so the person in Melbourne put the whole thing on hold while she rang for confirmation.
Phone goes "ring ring" at the next teller's desk.
"Yes" .... "Yes" ....."Yes" "That's correct".....
"Look; She's right here next to me, and that's correct!"
The Melbourne experts had rung the people she was dealing with for assistance!
Transaction completed shortly after.
So two phone calls to Melbourne and three people involved and it takes 8 days less!
Work that out!!
Cheers,
P
I'm not saying that the government might not be able to pass legislation to force the banks to do something they don't want to do. They did it with the Consumer Credit Code legislation a few years ago which forced the banks to do a whole lot of extra paper work on lending.
However, there is nothing that says a bank HAS to offer online services. So if the government passed legislation forcing banks to introduce expensive hardware at their own cost, then the banks might decide that it was no longer profitable to provide online access to accounts.
My bank's easy. They just ask you whether you're being naughty or not. If you can give a reference number from your parole officer, they don't even ask that. :D
Richard
For a bank to operate in more than one state they need a federal government's banking licence. The government can, and used to, attach many conditions to these licences, in particular untill the 1980's the requirement to operate a substantial rural branch network.
Then in the name of globalisation and rationalisation the government dropped that and many other requirements leaving the banks free to provide less and less service for more and more costs to their customers.
So whilst the government could insist on a net banking system with proper security measures they won't because they are a spineless mob without the guts to ensure consumers are not ripped of by banks. :mad:
As far as the banks are concerned it is cheaper to pay insurance premiums to cover any fraud than to provide proper security measures. This trend started when I was working in a major bank in the 1970's, when you were not embarrassed to admit to working in a bank, and has become worse and worse over the years.
Peter.
SilentC,
I doubt whether any bank these days would have to chutzpah to cease offering internet banking - they would certainly lose my custom if they did. And anyway it would be easy enough for the government to mandate that internet banking must be part of the service provided and that it must be as secure as can reasonably, in the view of a government banking expert, be provided. I see it as one of the most important functions of government to ensure that large corporations do not abuse their power, particularly if they are in the privileged position of an oligopoly, as the big four are.
Rocker
Banks have a lot of audacity. Who else would get away with charging people to access their own money? Remember when banks only earned income on the difference between the interest rates?Quote:
I doubt whether any bank these days would have to chutzpah to cease offering internet banking
However, you are probably right, they wouldn't do it - it's too good an opportunity to make money. They would just pass the cost on to us in the form of increased fees and charges. You would have to buy your own dongle and the service fees would go up to accommodate the extra costs of the secure system.
Sturedee,
I remember the days when you were willing to admit you worked for a bank.
Silentc.
You got it in one word. Cost, they have a too short term veiw
1 A record profit, even after large loss (caused partly by low staffing, though they will never admit that)
2. further staff cuts to lower costs
3. Large sponsership for a sporting event costing millions...
I have seen endless projects going off track because of bad management, and people so busy pushing their own ideas to the cost of the project. One project I was on in the beginning, I proposed a solution, that could be implimented in weeks. Was told this didnt meet the requirements, I was moved to anther project, they then spent six months studing the problem to come to the conclusion that what I proposed was the best solution. six months work for three people wasted because someone wanted to cover their own job.
This happens endlesssly, it is a problem with all bureaucracies.
Cant offer any solutions, just my observations from inside.