Bank on Your Cell Phone

AnonGirl writes "Big banks are launching mobile banks to 'keep customers and generate more payment revenue down the line.' Citibank is working on two pilots: one with Obopay, and the other for contact-less payments. AT&T phones will have Wachovia already installed in their phones by fourth quarter 2007. The downside: 'Even though banks are not charging for their service, carriers do charge for accessing data through their phone.'"

Comments

I wonder...

[Whuffo]

Did any of these banks actually do any analysis of the security of cell phone data?

It hasn't been that long since Paris Hilton's cell got hacked and everyone got to see what she kept on her phone; maybe AT&T has better security on this stuff - but I'd bet not.

I don't think this is going to turn out well...

Re:I wonder...

[ushering05401]

When is the last time that a major company put security ahead of profits?

Wouldn't it be nice if the internet, the greatest resource created in our time, was actually treated as a vital community resource... to be protected and respected by institutions, public and private alike.

Unfortunately the net and all related tech will be exploited via the path of least resistance...

Regards.

Re:I wonder...

[jshurst1]

I'm a developer for one of the larger US banks and am currently in the pilot for the mobile personal banking rollout. I don't actually work on the mobile team, but I do have access to most of the internal security reports, and I can assure you that at least our company has thoroughly reviewed the many security concerns. Is it perfectly secure? No, and pretty much no system is. But from what I've read, the security risks are on par with (although different than) connecting to the bank through a personal computer.

One interesting thing to note, is this is actually my employer's second rollout of personal mobile banking. They were the first major bank to offer mobile services (over a decade ago) but canceled the program because of lack of interest. Perhaps features looming on the horizon like "contact-less payments" will draw more attention, but the response amongst most my coworkers on the pilot has been pretty ho-hum: kind of neat, but I don't think I'd use it very often.

Re:I wonder...

[Foerstner]

The thing that stops thieves is that whole "youll go to jail if you do this" thing.

That, right there, is why "cybercrime" is so attractive. Eavesdropping on an electronic signal can be done from anywhere, with no pesky eyewitnesses. The thieves believe that they'll never be caught, because there's practically no chance of them being observed in the act. Stupid but true.

Even if they are broadcasting data unencrypted it will still be more secure than regular credit card use because the difficulty of electronic eavesdropping is much higher than the difficulty of reading a number on a card.

If you're talking about random crimes of opportunity, you're right. But once word got out that a major provider was broadcasting data in the clear, serious criminals would organize and get busy. One reasonably tech-savvy criminal could farm out the actual data-gathering, using some automated tools, to a half-dozen lackeys who just know how to drive around, run a script and hold an antenna. There are plenty of serious credit-card-fraud syndicates out there. For such an organization, this would be just one low-risk way to get fresh numbers.

Re:Is this new?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is a backwater for mobile technologies...

Re:my phone is not an ATM

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

My phone is not an ATM, why are they trying to make it like one? Sure, I can transfer balances on a whim to different accounts, but who really needs to do this on a regular (i.e. more than once a month) basis? And for those transfers like credit card payments, i'm sure you sit down in front of your computer at least ONCE a month.

I agree with you today, but I'm not sure how I'd feel a year from now. I recently bought a Treo and have an unlimited data plan with Sprint. More and more I find myself using it to do things I normally do on the computer. I frequent Wikipedia, IMDB, Google News, and so on. Heck, I even found myself browsing Amazon a bit with it. The reason I'm using the phone instead of the computer? I'm often away from it. Amazon, for example, is great to peek at if I'm at a store and I find something I might want to get. I'll get a review and an idea of if the price is roughly in the right ballpark.

Okay, I'm probably not thrilling you with my tales of my mighty Treo browsing experience, but hear me out. I often get hit with an idea to do something when I'm away from the computer, and the Treo's awfully available. Sometimes I'll be out and about and realize I haven't paid my credit card bill yet. Well, that's when I notice how limited it can be sometimes. I've found out that the silly site they use won't support it. That's a bummer, I end up having to remember to take care of it when I get home. That's all fine and dandy, nothing wrong with that, except it's crunch mode where I work right now. My mind is full of tasks and I have precious few hours in the day to handle my home expenses. My point is that I can see the appeal of something like this if it's handled well and securely. Necessary? Nah, but there are people out there it has the potential to be convenient to.

I'm tired and I'm not sure how clear I'm being, so I'll put it a little more concisely: Yes, I am in front of a computer enough to take care of bills. However, I also find my phone is available at times when my computer isn't. It's not a cure for cancer, but it's semi-interesting to somebody like me who finds spare time to be a bit pricey.