Natwest 'csautomer service' and new bank wanted

gt94sss2

Markyt wrote: »

That was my argument with NW. No-one was able to overcome any of my objections, and if they people implementing them don't understand the technology, then there is no way I'll trust it.

Papers are signed and off to Nationwide.

As per my other post, Nationwide are planning remote card readers as well..

Regards
Sunil

amandathepanda

I would be in favour of anything to try and reduce fraud on my account.

Markyt

natweststaffmember wrote: »

If the card reader is the sole issue then there is telephone banking that does not use the card reader at all and as an internet banking user you are able to use them to pay bills etc, etc,. NatWest are issuing them so that there is additional security when doing online transactions which will mean that if you as a customer does answer the dodgy email that you do not have your money swiped from the account. I accept that you are unhappy with the technology and unfortunately a manager would not have been able to override something that is happening with online banking but may like myself on here have offered the alternative of telephone banking which does not require the reader.
At least others on here have offered the solution and good luck with nationwide.

Phone banking is useless from work, and not an acceptable alternative.

Card readers have already been cracked, and to use it in any case I have to carry it around with me, together with my card. Lose them, and I still have a problem.

There is already two factor authentication on the website. Either it is secure, or it isn't. Don't add another layer of the same thing in an attempt to create the illusion of security. Fine, it needs a pin to access it - I have a half dozen or so cards. How many combinations does that mean I need to remember, given you can't write anything down? Now add to that a different card reader + pin for each lender / card issuer. It's now silly.

I'm also not dumb enough to allow my sytem to be infected by trojans, or to click on phishing emails. I've explained this. I'm not vulnerable, and don't want to be penalized because some people are a bit thick.

I want a simple, secure, useable system.

Markyt

amandathepanda wrote: »

I would be in favour of anything to try and reduce fraud on my account.

So would I. Unfortunately, all we are offered is the illusion of security, and any benefits are far outweighed by the hassle of managing these ill-concieved systems.