Technology can't stop robberies at ATMs

Technology can't stop robberies at ATMs



WASHINGTON -- I've played out in my head many times what I would do
if I were abducted and forced to withdraw money from an ATM.
I've thought about plugging in the wrong PIN so many times that the
ATM would lock up. But I would surely anger my abductor if I did that.
I've imagined pushing a panic button on the ATM that would summon the
police.
Interestingly, within the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility
and Disclosure Act of 2009 or Credit CARD Act was a provision for the
Federal Trade Commission to study and report to Congress the
cost-effectiveness of making available ATM emergency PIN technology that
would enable a banking customer who is under duress to electronically
alert a local law enforcement agency.
This week, the FTC issued the report, more than two months overdue.
With a lot of "we don't know," the agency couldn't recommend anything.
Specifically, the FTC was asked to look at "emergency PIN" or
"reverse PIN" and "alarm button" technologies. An emergency PIN would
allow a customer in trouble to enter some variant of their regular
bankcard PIN in the keypad and that would summon police. With a reverse
PIN, a customer would punch in his or her PIN backward, which would
alert authorities that a robbery was in progress.
The reverse PIN has been rumored for years to be installed on ATMs.
But this is an urban legend.
The FTC discussed another emergency PIN system that has been
unsuccessfully marketed to banks. The "ATMOnGuard" requires a customer
to punch one number after his or her PIN. The additional number would
indicate whether the transaction was being conducted under duress.
Really, all the electronic alert options sound feasible to me.
But it took the FTC 38 pages to conclude that the available
technology probably wouldn't "deter any type of ATM crime, and in some
instances may actually increase the risk of danger to ATM customers."
Oh, and even if the technology was effective, the costs of implementing
an emergency PIN system could be substantial, although the agency
couldn't give any estimates.
Although there seem to be regular news reports of robberies of ATM
customers, there is little data that specifically tracks ATM robberies
where a victim is compelled to withdraw funds. What evidence there is
suggests that the majority of ATM robberies occur after the victim has
already withdrawn funds and isn't using the keypad, which means an
emergency activation system wouldn't help.
The banking industry hasn't been persuaded that ATM emergency alert
systems would work either.
"The findings of the FTC report confirm what we have been saying for
years," said Margot Mohsberg, a spokesperson for the American Bankers
Association. "The reverse PIN technology does not improve the safety of
ATM users. ... We are always looking for new ideas to improve the safety
of our customers, but research by several banks across the country has
found that the reverse PIN technology does not do this."
Mohsberg said the banks that have looked into the available
technology concluded that it doesn't improve customer safety. On the
contrary, she said, the institutions felt the technology could further
endanger customers by giving them a false sense of security.
"The best thing a person can do in an attempted robbery is hand over
the money, get as far away from the robber as possible and when you are
in a safe place, contact the police," she said. "No amount of money is
worth endangering your life."
The concerns raised in the FTC report and by the banking industry are
reasonable. It's just that we've become so used to technology solving
so many of our problems that it seems implausible that we can't find a
safe technological way to thwart this particular crime.
Ultimately in my ATM attack scenarios, I just hand over the money and
pray that I'll be let go unharmed. It is just money.