Slashdot Mirror
Citigroup Plans Thumbprint ATMs For India's Poor
Brad Lucier points out
a Financial Times report (carried by MSN Money) that Citigroup is rolling out a network of biometric ATMs aimed at illiterate Indian slum dwellers. From the article: "The machines will recognize account holders' thumbprints, eliminating the need for a personal identification number, and will have color-coded screen instructions and voiceovers to help guide them through transactions... Though India's population exceeds 1 billion, Citigroup estimates that there are only about 300 million bank accounts in the country... 'It's not a philanthropic exercise,' [PS Jayakumar, a Citigroup business manager in India] said. 'For it to be sustainable, we should break even and make a little bit of money.'"
So instead of thieves stealing your wallet, they'll just cut off your thumb instead!
How soon before the first involuntary customer thumbectomy?
Seriously, how soon before someone makes a wax impression or other fake thumbprint to fool the machine?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-431273027 7175242198&q=freedom+fascism
charge,, 4 of the same idea in unison.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
So will this be extended to the poor lepers who need banking services just like anyone else? Or will another big corporation shun this market segment?
of illiterate Indians?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Consider the Indian version of the redneck ATM theft: Two Indians break into a store, run a rope in, tie it to the ATM machine, hook it to two oxen and away they go!
Unless these ATMs hand out 10 bucks (or equivalent) per press the user will still have to understand what they are reading on the screen. I accept that many Indians may not be able to write a letter but surely memorising a four digit PIN is not so hard?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know if "illiterate Indian slum dwellers" is a demographic I'd want my bank investing vast amounts of capital and new technology into.
I'd rather be an ignorant moron than an anonymous coward.
Doubtful. These accounts are likely to contain a superficial amount of money. Why would the bank do this then? Well, if for example, the balance of these accounts hovered around a measly $1, that's a few million dollars that the bank can use to lend to others that it wouldn't otherwise have. More lending translates into profit. Done.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Citigroup has a target of 50,000 slum-dwelling customers. That means the total deposits might be $100 * 50,000 = $5million. Assuming Citigroup makes 5% on this, it's $250,000 profit opportunity. This barely justifies 25 ATMs and the effort to get these people banking. The reality is that Citigroup is trialling (a) biometrics and (b) low income banking. They are separate trials.. Slashdot readers all know that fingerprint reading has not yet reached the point we'd trust our own bank accounts to it. Citigroup know this too - they are using people with little to lose to carry out large scale experiments. If someone gets 'hacked'- it'll cost $100 to reimburse them. Tops. Much better there than here... Low income banking; China and India account for 1/4 - 1/3 of the world's population - and they are currently not very wealthy. Still, make a margin and there's a good volume. What's more - over time, they may become wealthy and it'd be nice to 'own' these economies...
If they are poor, then they won't have any money to withdraw from the ATM.
That's unless the Banks etc., start to give them credit/loans.
Seems like the carrot and stick method for a new market, take loans/credit out with us and we'll make Billions.
I see lots of people going bankrupt in India in the future.
We should ignore for a moment the security and technological issues here. Instead focus on the interaction of technology, culture, and society. What Citi is doing is adding a high-tech, complex device in a abysmally poor and illiterate culture. There are a few major issues with this.
It is very unlikely that illiterate farmers will understand how exactly these ATMs work or for that matter, the banking system itself (which is so complex that most Americans don't understand all the fees and restrictions involved). This can inevitably lead to Citi, knowingly or unknowingly, taking advantage of these people who do not have the education, finances, and political power to protect themselves.
Although the farmers will hopefully be earning interest on these accounts, that interest really doesn't benefit the community. Think about it this way: you run to your local Citi branch and they lend out your money. The interest earned on those loans pays shareholders, the clerks at the desk, and the loan officers. All of these benefactors are members of your community. Do you really think these poor Indian farmers are going to work at the bank, either being a teller or repairing the ATM's? No, it will benefit the wealthier Indians and the international shareholders.
While it's great that Citi is trying to tap this market, they could've gone about it much better. They could've set up a physical branch, employed the more ambitious farmers, and helped pull these people out of poverty. Muhammad Yunus showed that simple systems such as micropayments could be profitable and beneficial for the community. I think he also showed that the poor doesn't need to be just another marker share; instead, you can simultaneously invest in people and reap a dual reward.
Being a former Citi employee, I can say I don't have a whole lot of confidence in this. Citibanks own internal biometric attempts have been disastrous, and this was in a controlled population of 4000 in one off their service centers. Half the time the biometric readers wouldn't acknowledge the thumbprints as being valid, some people were able to use other login ID's with their own thumb prints, and that was if and when the readers themselves were even working. They had limited success, and I believe they even abandoned the project. Considering that fiasco, I am surprised that they would proceed to a much wider audience.
Considering these results I don't think chopping off thumbs will even be necessary...
"illiterate Indian slum dwellers" need bank accounts and easy access to their cash?
Maybe while they're at it, they could teach the user to read a new word with every use.
Its not going to help. How many atms are they going to set up so that the person does have to be physically present.Its common sense, the id card and certificate should never be the same thing. Its not impossible for people to not lose fingers when getting robbed now - its a clean job for the crook.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bear s_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/
I guess it was flamebate, Sorry. I deserve that.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
The machines will recognize account holders' thumbprints, eliminating the need for a personal identification number
Why can't these idiots ever understand that fingerprints aren't secrets?
So now I can collect a fingerprint from someone (you know you leave them on everything you touch, right?) and have instant access to their bank account?
Mandatory reading for biometric proponents: Fun with fingerprint readers
)9TSS
How are they going to do this for (potentially) a billion users? I thought fingerprints had fairly low entropy... won't there be collisions?
I guess I'll shut up now, it's hard to be PC and funny sometimes, and in a hurry to.
Still trying to get first post
again I did not meen to offend.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
Why do poor people need better access to ATMs?
Dekker Dreyer
1.) Social Darwinism should be paramount here -- if they can't help themselves then no one can. 2.) Poor don't trust banks (come visit poor, mostly African American areas or Atlanta, there are check cashing businesses and western unions no more than a mile apart -- you don't see these anywhere but poor neighborhoods). This is not a good business plan for any bank -- trying to squeeze money out of people that simply don't have any.
You know this makes perfect sense. Every year I give money to UNICEF and every year it's the same bloody thing. People over in the third world are still starving. All this time I've been asking what the hell have they been doing with all that money they get.. And now I understand.. The starving people in the third world just can't take it out of their bank accounts.
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
Citigroup rolled this out in Singapore a month or two ago, here's a pretty good overview
1. Introduce biometric ATM authentication for the poor in India
2. Give bank accounts to the poor in India (you know, people who have no money to deposit)
3. ????????
4. Profit(?)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Every mention of fingerprint-based "security" always brings to my mind a line from ST:TNG. I paraphrase (because I don't remember the exact words):
"I assume your hand will open this door whether you are conscious or not."
-- Data to the time traveller from the past
'It's not a philanthropic exercise,'
The liberalisation of Indian economy in the 90s, the banking sector had multinational banks entering catering to the upper/middle class. Citigroup is one of those 'new age banks' (as they are called in India). They behave like western financial institutions - high fees, web/telephone connectivity, hidden charges, legalese, and a lot more.
New age banks does not allow provisions like a zero balance account. Older nationalized banks are flexible with such provisions (service may not be efficient) and that is very important for Indians who do not belong to the upper/middle class - the 80% of the population. The 'new age banks' also have aggressive finance/loan schemes and failure to comply with monthly payments (credit cards, vehicle/housing loans etc.) can lead to physical assaults/manhandling by third party collection agents. When such issues happen, the bank schmucks use the usual line of 'we are not aware of the tactics used by our collection agents'.
This experiment by Citibank is for data collection, testing new biometric services etc. - but the motive is not philanthropic nor as a profit center.
Tat Tvam Asi
And if their account is empty, a vein seeking needle will creep up the arm and extract a pint of blood for which their account will be credited. They're working on a method for collecting sperm which doesn't violate public modesty, but have yet to come up with anything that can be field tested. The extraction of organs will likely not appear for some time, as preliminary experiments on monkies have been... messy.
Loose lips lose spit.
India's poor people are amongst the poorest in the world.
So somebody wants to setup an ATM for them? I certainly don't mean to come off as an insensitive clod but there's some problems with this:
-The friggin' transaction fees are probably more money than they make in a month.
-Poor people don't use banks
-Illiterate people don't have a clue about how or why they would need this
Lastly,
-Poor people work very hard doing manual labor--their hands are very rough and scarred.
I can't get biomentric technology to work consistently for me with my white pasty callus-free thumbs; I can only imagine the frustration that will result from users who have no education, very little money, and fingers that will undoubtedly baffle the biometric software.
I hope Citigroup is thinking about all this, too...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I assume Citi is testing thumbprint ATMs on unbanked and lower income people because the fallout should be more managable if the technology failed. Sounds like a nice test market where you don't have to worry about losing loyal customers with $10k in the bank.
d svpunbanked.html
But why India? There are 56 million unbanked people in the US:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/02/23/0223fin
why is the bank assuming (or even finding) that poor people can't remember pin numbers?
Building a Better ATM
PRODEM Private Financial Fund has been using specially designed ATMs for poorer communities in Bolivia for several years now. The ATMs uses smart cards, finger prints, and a multilingual voice-driver interface with a color coded system. The cost is about half of the cost of traditional ATMs.
From the World Resources Institute:
Serving the Poor Profitably in Bolivia
The World Resources Institute has written a case study on them too:
http://www.digitaldividend.org/pdf/prodem.pdf
I have seen ATM security men helping illiterate ATM users operate their ATM account. Thumbprints and voice commands would now avoid those situations. Certainly a move towards better customer satisfaction.
I agree so much with this, and, I'm an ex-employee (resigned not fired, BTW!). Citigroup have been involved with Enron, Parmalat and many other pieces of very substantial sleaze. They have a much ethical track record than Microsoft, roughly speaking. Have a look at: http://www.innercitypress.org/citi.html and make your own mind up.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Just how much money are they spending developing, producing and deploying all of these biometric ATMs for "India's poor and illiterate"
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just teach them how to use the ATM when they sign up for an ATM card?
"biometric security measures were fooled 90% of the time by simple attacks like Play-Doh molds"
davecb5620@gmail.com
Get the scoop here: http://malfy.org/
I didn't spell out all the details, the point is you can make fake thumbprints.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Really, not meaning to disrespect the poor, but how many will have money in the bank instead of their pockets?
I do agree that in general, some form of biometric verification is good when making financial transactions, just not sure if this is the ideal place for such a rollout.
If only this was around a few decades ago, the beggar in Pushpak wouldn't have to hide all his cash under jute bags :)
:D
Btw, this isn't really offtopic - just a tangential reference to an old (and really enjoyable) Hindi movie. The movie itself is entirely without any dialogue, so you don't even have to know Hindi (or any other language!) to watch it
In other words, "We want to make a profit off the very poorest of the poor. No one is safe from our greed."
It's as bad as the current round of "profit records" by Canada's banks. Now that they've paid off their Enron bills by hiking service fees, their profits are leaping to insane levels on the backs of people who can't afford it and who have no choice. Now that the Enron expense has been passed on to the consumer and cleared, it's time to cut those additional service fees. They were allowed so that the banks wouldn't collapse, not so they could screw us indefinitely.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Having been a Citibank(India) customer for the past 3 years, I can assure you that customer interest is the last thought on Citi's mind. They do not have branches and force customers to use phone/e-mail banking, which are next to useless. Anyone who has ever tried to get a problem redressed by Citibank would probably agree with me. And anyway, poor iliterate Indians will not have access to phone or e-mail. The only motive I see is that they get to do a beta trial on people who will probably not understand what is going on and will not be able to complain in case Citibank screw up.
I'm a bit sad to see that the majority of comments here are looking at the downside/impracticality of Citi's initiative - not to mention conspiracy theories about biometric trials and ripoffs.
Sure, it's not philanthropy. But it may well do a lot of good. I'd like to make a couple of points and ask a few questions:
1. 'Slum Dwellers' are poor. But they can still own televisions and radios. They do spend considerable sums when getting married/on special occasions. Giving them banking facilities makes sense.
2. A slum is not the safest and most secure place in the world. Why shouldn't they want to keep whatever little they have in a bank?
3. Consider women who want to save money, and not let their husbands drink it away. Makes sense for them?
4. Thumb-ectomies? How's that so different from a neck-ectomy by a robber intent on stealing your money?
5. Will the biometrics work? Why not? And if there are snafus and security glitches - they'll get worked out. Why should a thumbprint in any case be less secure than a signature or a four digit number?
6. Is citi using this as a low risk experiment? Maybe they are. What's wrong with that motivation (amongst others), as long as something useful comes out of it for the customer?
At the end of the day, these are people with very very VERY little access to banking services. Most of the time the best they can do is their local post office (Our post offices have savings account facilities) which are slow, close early and on weekends, and are not always convenient. Something which brings some promise of convenience, security and value addition to people's lives should be given a fair hearing.
Well, although they may be discriminated against, on the list of reasons to justifiably avoid physical contact with someone, contagious skin diseases are pretty high on my list. Can't say I really blame people in regions where universal precautions, much less medical care, are unavailable, to stay the hell away from any possible transmission vectors. Hanson's Disease is barely well-understood in the first world; I doubt most people who haven't received specialized medical training know anything about it other than it looks like no fun to have.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Maybe you should read through what they've been doing? It wasn't/isn't an innuendo, it's an accusation and a statement of fact. My name and website url is on the parent post and you have chosen to post anonymously too, I think that says it all.
On y va, qui mal y pense!