Below is an article I wrote about what we can do to prevent ATM crime. It appeared in the October Sturbridge Times Magazine starting on Page 5.
On The Subject of ATM Crime
By Richard Morchoe
On the early morning of July 26th
Amy Lord was beaten in her South Boston apartment and ordered into her jeep by
Edwin Alemany. He had her drive to
four ATMs to remove money. After
Alemany was done with her, she was murdered and her body left in a wooded
section of Hyde Park.
It was big news when it happened,
then it wasn’t. No one should be
surprised, the news cycles being what they are. Of course, for the family, it will be a wound that never heals. It might resonate with the readers of
the Sturbridge Times Magazine. Amy
Lord was from Wilbraham, just up the street.
One would have hoped there would
have been a groundswell for measures that would at least make it difficult for
such crimes to occur. Though it
did not happen, there are some people who have thought about the problem and
are working for reforms.
BU law professor David Breen has
been a longtime activist concerned with the problem. In the light of the recent murder he is quoted by the Boston
Globe, “You would think if one of the five ATMs had at least a 911 phone or a
panic button, it would have given her a fighting chance.”
“I think the banking industry has
blood on its hands.” The professor
told the Globe.
Professor Breen has every reason to
wonder about the lack of safety apparatus in place. In 1991 he was shot and robbed in an ATM kiosk. When he recovered, he worked for the
passage of a New York City ATM law.
For ten years State Senator Brian
Joyce has been pushing for enhanced ATM safety. Last January the Milton democrat refiled legislation to
require ATMs to have adequate lighting, security cameras and an emergency phone
that would be a direct line to 911.
So who would oppose such
measures? The banking industry of
course would not wish to see an incremental cost. That said, what is the rationale for being against the
legislation?
Bruce E. Spitzer, director of
communications at the Massachusetts Bankers Association told the Boston Globe
“It’s not going to be effective and doesn’t make sense.” The legislation does not require
measures at machines located in convenience stores and gas stations. Mr. Spitzer said that is “Part
and Parcel of why we have opposed this legislation for a while now.” That does sound a bit weak.
Yet, the banks have a point. It’s no reason not to pass Senator
Joyce’s bill, but it needs to be considered. Let’s work through a thought experiment. Say you were an ATM robber. You had carjacked your prey and are
driving to an ATM. When you get
there, you will probably accompany the victim into the kiosk. Your instructions would go something
like this, “Take out as much money as you can and if you touch the phone or the
button, I’ll kill you right here.”
Clearly, the learning curve of the
criminal class is not so slow that they won’t figure this out.
What would be truly useful would be
something that alerted police without alerting the robber, that is a system
where a cardholder could request an alternative pin number. The use of the number would alert the
police that a crime was in progress at the machine. The system should also alert authorities to the vehicle make
and plate number as perpetrators usually use the victim's car.
The alternate number would not
cause alarm and the money would be dispensed so as not to tip off the criminal
that the police had been notified and were in pursuit. The CCTV in the ATM kiosk would be
recording the criminal as the crime is in progress.
There is no such system in practice
at this time. Still, as
everything that runs the ATM networks is controlled by a computer program, it
should be feasible.
According to one man it is.
Joseph Zingher has software that if implemented would allow a victim to
enter their pin number backwards.
This would go right to 911.
Joseph holds U.S
Patent Number 5,731,575. In the
first years of this century, a credit union in Georgia and a bank in South
Carolina were set to implement it.
The two institutions dropped the idea when their service provider
threatened to drop them.
A 2004 Forbes article
mentions that Microsoft has filed a patent as well. Mr. Zingher has some disagreements with the article,
but if a major player is interested, that is significant evidence that it is
doable.
Mr. Zingher’s product is his life’s
work. Along with his brother, he
is fighting to have his system adopted.
He does wish to be compensated for his system. Certainly, banks do not want to pay too much. Joseph has been waiting a long time and
he is pessimistic that he will succeed before the patent runs out.
Of course, the banks could be
resisting because Joseph Zingher’s system, or any system is far more difficult
to effect than claimed. According to systems engineer and Worcester Polytechnic
grad Daniel Earley, “From a technical standpoint the SafetyPIN concept is
entirely feasible. ATMs are typically connected via telephone or Ethernet to
bank networks. The same infrastructure could be used to connect them to law
enforcement networks. Some fairly simple logic would have to be added to the
ATM's software so that it would contact law enforcement as well as the bank
network if the user's PIN was entered in reverse order." That does not sound insurmountable.
The question is, what price is it
worth to save a life, .0001cent per transaction, $100 per? Will it be an onerous cost for what may
or may not be a statistically insignificant crime? One’s reaction might be different if a family member becomes
a statistic.
It has been quoted too many times,
but Willie Sutton is famous for answering why he robbed banks, “That’s where
the money is.” That is what is in
ATMs. It is an easy crime to
commit, but statistics are elusive and need a murder rather than a mere assault
to be noticed. In 2006 Professor
Breen said, "What does it take, does somebody have to die?" As the latest crime slips down the
memory hole, it appears it will take more than that.
Senator Joyce’s office was
contacted and press contact, Jack Cardinal passed on the information. No response was forthcoming as of
deadline.
Professor Breen responded by email,
but did not address the question of pin safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment