Identity theft is on the rise, and is relatively easy given the array of tools available to the fraudsters. From the brick (a simple tool used for breaking into cars and stealing credit cards), to the hacking into of retailer databases (greater complexity using a dedicated "workforce" to perpetrate the crime). Our traditional way of detecting fraud is profiling. Checking that that transactions undertaken are in character with the normal expenditure habits of the cardholder. This is proven, is successful, but the sophisticated fraud operation realises this and will use cards appropriately - bucking the scurity system and using their cards to purchase goods and services in a way unlikely to alert the issuers.ie consistant with real cardholder usage.

Our reliance on a peice of plastic makes us vulnerable, it is easily taken away from us. An additional protection mechanism needs to be used to augment current fraud detection and act as a deterrent to would be fraudsters. Short of a DNA sample being collected at POS and validated in real time (ummm, maybe one day?) Biometrics could provide the answer.

Voice recognition, retinal scans, finger prints. All are unique, communicable over networks for transaction validation and difficult to accurately replicate when deployed in the correct manner. They are however considered personally invasive by some, the vocal minority. On the proviso that the information given would not be shared with anyone else would you mind providing a retinal scan, a thumbprint or a voice sample to your issuer if you knew that it could protect you against fraud? I wonder if the banks have ever asked their customers that question? After all we would only be protecting ourselves using our skills and make up. Isn't that what nature intended?