Consumer trust in banking security misplaced - Capgemini

Consumer trust in banking security misplaced - Capgemini

Research from Capgemini highlights a striking dichotomy between the views of consumers and banking insiders about levels of security in financial services.

The study of 7600 consumers and over 180 senior data privacy and security professionals from banking and insurance firms from eight countries emphasises the gap between the level of trust placed in banks by the public and the reality.

While banks and insurers enjoy a significantly higher level of trust from consumers in the cybersecurity of their systems (83%) than any other sector, industry insiders expressed a contrary view. Just one in five banking executives (21%) are highly confident in their ability to detect a breach, let alone defend against it.

Mike Turner, global cybersecurity chief operating officer at Capgemini, said: “Consumers implicitly trust banks with their money and data, but this faith is rooted in a mistaken belief their provider can be 100% secure. While banks are evolving to combat the sophisticated threat cybercriminals pose, public understanding of the threats and challenges remains low.”

Upcoming EU legislation requiring companies to disclose data breaches within 72 hours are likely to upset the rose-tinted perspective of consumers about fortress banking.

This is alarming, as fully 65% of consumers view trust in data privacy and security as an extremely significant factor when choosing their bank and three quarters says they would switch their provider in the event of a data breach.

The gap in perception is amplified by the finding that only three percent of consumers believe their own bank has been breached, although one in four of the institutions surveyed admitted to having been the victim of a hack.

Zhiwei Jiang, global head of financial services, insights & data at Capgemini, notes that consumers appear to instinctively trust banks and insurers without strong reason.

“When GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) is introduced and all breaches are likely to be made public soon after they occur, many people will be in for a surprise,” he says.

Comments: (5)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 03 February, 2017, 14:46Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes Do you have a link to the Cap research, upon which your article is based, please?
A Finextra member
A Finextra member 03 February, 2017, 15:261 like 1 like S'okay, found it myself :-)
A Finextra member
A Finextra member 03 February, 2017, 17:16Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

I diagree with the report's conclusions. Consumer confidence in their banks is truly well justified. Banks spend far more on security than any other industry segment. The largest losses at banks are not from breaches but from account takeover, transaction tampering, and call-center and ATM fraud that is the result of phishing attacks, social engineering, and malware. New security measures that include biometric and behavioral authentication, and real-time risk analysis to identify fraud are proving increasingly effective at stopping these types of attacks.  

And, the idea that the adoption of GDPR will result in the prompt disclosure of data breaches is a fallacy. It took Yahoo years to discover that they had been breached. At that point, what difference does 3 days or 3 months make in disclosure.


A Finextra member
A Finextra member 03 February, 2017, 18:26Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Still where would you stash your money if not in a bank? .... Nowhere else; no options out there. Instead of security, let's try "trust". Trust might be the only major asset of any regulated traditional bank. People go to the bank first and foremost for trust and then go the ad-hoc digital or else gadgets/promotions. Worth it reminding that trust in banking emanates not from complex security processes but from regulator assurance of protecting your valuables in the bank.

During my preaching of mobile wallet capability ( to banks, I always put forth "Reinstating banking to banks" since there is no trustful regulated/sponsored alternative.

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 04 February, 2017, 00:491 like 1 like Very genuinely, and very respectfully Mr Gunn (when people say that, they typically mean "...with no respect...", but I really do mean it with respect), Mr Kaady's opening statement is valid. It's not subjective. In the 21st century you can't stash cash under the mattress. And to say that the biggest intrusions occur from <> is academic to me, my mum & dad and to my postman. I don't 'expect' my money to be secure, because I am under an almost legal obligation to place cash or a monthly pay cheque in a bank. Ergo : it IS safe. If any bank says I'm "...gambling by placing my money with them...", but their odds are better than the bank next door, that's simply not good enough. If it's not 100% safe, I've been tricked - or to use the English vernacular: sh*fted. I learn lots from people such as yourself who are far better qualified than me, but please - don't discredit yourself and other experts by saying that biometric tech that has been available to banks for a decade or more, and was rejected by FIs on the basis that it's "expensive", is now adding security. That's like the "...correct 52% of the time..." argument. I mean no offence, but I found your post bank-apologetic in the extreme.