Over two thirds of people would be willing to undergo fingerprint scans to verify their identities when dealing with banks and government organisations, according to a global survey from Unisys.
Is this or is this not Spin City? Two thirds of us, apparently, would be happy for banks to verify customers' identities using fingerprints, but fingerprints still rank below passwords as the preferred method of identity verification. I sit well and truly
in the other 33% - I would ABSOLUTELY not want to think that my bank was in possession of any of my biometrics. If it's any consolation, I would also ABSOLUTELY not want to think that the government was in possession of them either.
Could it be that Unysis has some biometric systems they want to shift? Maybe.
Once again, we appear to be heading blindly off down the "solve the problem with technology" route, without actually looking at the cause of the problem. What's the problem - phishing and related scams perpetrated by individuals and organisations that AREN'T
banks. How will verifying myself to the bank prevent the scammers from scamming me?
The problem is the banks. How can I tell that the call I have just received is from my bank, and not from Johnny Scammer posing as my bank with an East Indian accent. Whenever I receive calls from so-called banks, I ask the caller to prove to me that they
are the bank - I spent 90 minutes on the phone to HSBC because they couldn't work out how to do it. Mostly they just give up.
Scammers gain access to customer accounts because customers give up the means of access - it's nothing clever. Who's to say that the same scammers won't be able to extract biometric data from the same customers? It just needs a different mechanism.
What would stop the scammers would be a means by which the customers could verify that the phone call or email was really coming from the bank! But the bank's really don't want to shoulder the responsibility - after all, it's not their money.
Competitive PackageLondon or Frankfurt
© Finextra Research 2015