erol wrote:
I do question the anecdotal view, presented as fact, that it has. I do also think the only valid measure in such a determination is the volume of fraudulent transaction in monetary amounts as a % vs the amounts of non fraudulent transactions.
Like I say believe my anecdotal evidence or not, I do and have no reason to believe my friend is lying.
I am a little cynical that in the push to upgrade that banks will produce official figures that say; “It’s a lot more convenient but hey the chances of you being defrauded have just doubled.”
From my own point of view I can assure you that all the technology, and I've used most, to spot forged dollars isn’t as effective as someone who has the experience to know what to check. I’ve handled millions of dollars (not my own unfortunately) and will take the Pepsi test against an ultra violet machine and suchlike because experience tells me what to look for.
erol wrote:
Being sceptical is imo a good thing. However there can be situations where someone is sceptical only of 'evidence' that challenges their belief but who does not show the same level of scepticism to any evidence that does support their belief
Well obviously there is always my facts are better than your facts view but I’ll make a deal if you can find me one report from any quango that basically states; “Actually as the data shows we have pretty much achieved zilch and in fact are a waste of money,” I’ll eat up every Guardinista stat you produce with a spoon.
erol wrote:
It seems to me well within the realms of possibility that by automating the administrative / clerical task of recording peoples entry you can free time and resources of boarder staff that could be directed to more effective means of ensuring security than them thinking someone looks shifty at the point at which their entry is recorded.
But surely you must realise it won’t free up time for border staff it will replace them and those who survive with more time will have it directed at weighing luggage or a more potentially profitable task.
Banks didn’t bring in chip and pin to stop fraud they bought it in to cut staff as long as the cost of the fraud didn't outweigh the savings in staff the bean counters can justify it.
Peoples lives are a little more difficult to bean count but I guess they can factor in compensation payouts.
I sincerely hope to be wrong on this but I fear that as soon as this self-scanning becomes the norm it will be hacked and the fail-safe back up will fail and tragedy will ensue. I promise not to take the opportunity of some poor people’s deaths to say I told you so.
I love the fast changing world and the technical advances have in the main enhanced the world.
But although not every upgrade is a leap forward but many will keep fiddling with things to justify their existence.
For example an upgrade for your iplayer that will now include all UK channels is an improvement an upgrade that will tweet what you are watching to all your friends or put it on your Facebook page no so much.
Just because you can do something doesn’t always mean you should do something.
