ChatterBank0 min ago
Making It Near Impossible
58 Answers
Some organisations/institutions are particularly inclined to make bad choices. Now the news from my bank is that I must be at home whenever I want to log into my online banking, and they say this is by order of the Government's Ombudsman. They are going to insist on me using a "one time password" which they are going to give me by telephone. I don't have and don't want a mobile phone so unless they provide me with one they are insisting I return to base every time I want to do online banking - why not just tell me I have to go to my branch, regardless of where I may be travelling ? If this really is at the Ombudsman's instigation then my opinion of it has sunk lower than it was. What is wrong with a random number generator which has worked and still works very well in the UK and elsewhere ?
They say this is a UK-wide requirement so that should mean everyone is in the same boat, regardless of which bank they use. Can anyone tell me what they mean by one-time password ? Is it one that will only be required once or is it one that becomes invalid in a short time and they will/may go through this nonsense repeatedly, just to make absolutely certain you/I are driven up the wall and/or cannot use online banking. The insistence that this increases security is of course correct - if you make it impossible for people to use the system then it is perfectly secure. Another brilliant scheme dreamt up by incompetents - and it is nonsense to say "Everybody has a mobile", they shouldn't have to and they don't.
They say this is a UK-wide requirement so that should mean everyone is in the same boat, regardless of which bank they use. Can anyone tell me what they mean by one-time password ? Is it one that will only be required once or is it one that becomes invalid in a short time and they will/may go through this nonsense repeatedly, just to make absolutely certain you/I are driven up the wall and/or cannot use online banking. The insistence that this increases security is of course correct - if you make it impossible for people to use the system then it is perfectly secure. Another brilliant scheme dreamt up by incompetents - and it is nonsense to say "Everybody has a mobile", they shouldn't have to and they don't.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by KARL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.AuntPolly, I can do everything on the app that I can do on the website. My phone has a fingerprint reader so I need to wake my phone up with my fingerprint, open the app and log in with both my fingerprint and a passcode (3 digits out of 6). This tells you what you can do within the app and has a demo
https:/ /www.sa ntander .co.uk/ persona l/suppo rt/ways -to-ban k/on-yo ur-mobi le
Before you use it you have to register and use the details they send you to set it up. This is a good, secure system that means you can't set it up with just your bank details.
https:/
Before you use it you have to register and use the details they send you to set it up. This is a good, secure system that means you can't set it up with just your bank details.
TTT, The bank has a choice between several different means of setting up online security, and it is for them to decide - the one in question is choosing a method which has all the effects I have explained. I am not opting out of online banking I am objecting to what I see as perhaps the most unhelpful method being chosen, as I said at the outset, rendering my access to that account extremely limited. Some, I know, simply roll over and accept without scrutiny whatever is decided "on high" as "the norm", I am questioning why deliberately choose badly (I find it self-defeating). You seem unaware that after as little as 3 months the mobile company will close the unused account (no outgoing calls/texts) and pocket whatever credit there is, you MUST spend to keep the number in circulation - we could look into the acceptability of that too.
Other posters, Contrary to frequent suggestions I am certainly not against online banking (as should be quite obvious), in fact my interest in it pre-dates the current form when I was a customer at a bank that pioneered the concept but (from memory) without any inter-bank options and/or even credit card bill payments - the cost of it was too high for me at the time. Again, why make use of my account more restricted/difficult ? There are perfectly secure alternatives, ones which allow access to the account elsewhere apart from at home without resorting to a choice between "boosting the economy" directly through inducing business for others or restricting online banking to from/at the landline location only.
Other posters, Contrary to frequent suggestions I am certainly not against online banking (as should be quite obvious), in fact my interest in it pre-dates the current form when I was a customer at a bank that pioneered the concept but (from memory) without any inter-bank options and/or even credit card bill payments - the cost of it was too high for me at the time. Again, why make use of my account more restricted/difficult ? There are perfectly secure alternatives, ones which allow access to the account elsewhere apart from at home without resorting to a choice between "boosting the economy" directly through inducing business for others or restricting online banking to from/at the landline location only.
AuntPolly, I think it's because the bank believes the app to be safer than the website. They have full control over the app, no chance of keyloggers, viruses and other nasties that can find their way on to your pc. No chance of a third party finding the log in information that some people insist on writing down and keeping in a little book next to their pc.
When you use the website the bank is relying on you to use a safe browser, keep your antivirus and other security up to date, keep your wifi secure and keep your log in details in a way that it is impossible for anyone to use them. Sadly too many people are lax in all of these aspects.
When you use the website the bank is relying on you to use a safe browser, keep your antivirus and other security up to date, keep your wifi secure and keep your log in details in a way that it is impossible for anyone to use them. Sadly too many people are lax in all of these aspects.
//…but I am averse to being told I have to become a customer of a third party before the bank will allow me to access my account,…//
Sorry, Karl, but that is utter nonsense. You already are a “customer of a Third Party” (your internet service provider) if you want to access your account online. Even if you wanted to undertake banking by telephone you would be a customer of your landline provider.
//If I lived exclusively among women, 90% or more of child bearing age, I would still feel no compulsion to be seen to buy sanitary products. I similarly feel absolutely no need to carry on me a mobile phone - 99.9% of the time I basically have no use for it at all.//
Sorry again, Karl, but that argument is specious (a polite term for “ridiculous”). It’s not a question of “fitting in”. I am the last to want to do that but a mobile phone for most people is handy. As mentioned, should you break down whilst out driving, or need to contact people urgently whilst on the move. True, until a few years ago we didn’t have them. But at one time we didn’t have computers, we didn’t have landlines, we didn’t have electricity, we didn’t have gas, we didn’t have cars, we didn’t have anaesthetics and people died of (what are now) the most trivial of ailments.
//I am not opting out of online banking I am objecting to what I see as perhaps the most unhelpful method being chosen, as I said at the outset, rendering my access to that account extremely limited. Some, I know, simply roll over and accept without scrutiny whatever is decided "on high" as "the norm", I am questioning why deliberately choose badly (I find it self-defeating).//
Allowing access to bank accounts online is risky. Banks must mitigate against the risks and as criminals become more sophisticated the banks must take steps to make their systems more resilient. Each chooses to do so in their own way. So the answer for you is simple: change to a bank that has adopted measures which you feel able to comply with. A word of warning though – things change and you may find that, having changed your bank the bank then changes its system, perhaps to one requiring the use of a mobile. Whatever your objections to them they are here to stay and if you want to take advantage of modern developments (such as online banking) you will have to have modern tools. You bought a computer to do so and have to ensure its software is updated to be compatible with your bank's ever-changing systems. It seems you may have to bite the bullet and get a mobile phone because detailing your objections on here will not make the bank change the arrangements it expects its customers to comply with. I have a relative who insists on undertaking all his expenditure in cash. He draws cash from the bank at the beginning of each month and spends the rest of the month going round various places paying his bills and buying goods. He is now finding life is becoming extremely awkward as fewer places accept cash payments for bills. He refuses to adapt and it's causing him unnecessary grief. That's what's really happening to you with this issue and you will find it consumes you to the point of distraction. And I'm sure you can do without that.
Sorry, Karl, but that is utter nonsense. You already are a “customer of a Third Party” (your internet service provider) if you want to access your account online. Even if you wanted to undertake banking by telephone you would be a customer of your landline provider.
//If I lived exclusively among women, 90% or more of child bearing age, I would still feel no compulsion to be seen to buy sanitary products. I similarly feel absolutely no need to carry on me a mobile phone - 99.9% of the time I basically have no use for it at all.//
Sorry again, Karl, but that argument is specious (a polite term for “ridiculous”). It’s not a question of “fitting in”. I am the last to want to do that but a mobile phone for most people is handy. As mentioned, should you break down whilst out driving, or need to contact people urgently whilst on the move. True, until a few years ago we didn’t have them. But at one time we didn’t have computers, we didn’t have landlines, we didn’t have electricity, we didn’t have gas, we didn’t have cars, we didn’t have anaesthetics and people died of (what are now) the most trivial of ailments.
//I am not opting out of online banking I am objecting to what I see as perhaps the most unhelpful method being chosen, as I said at the outset, rendering my access to that account extremely limited. Some, I know, simply roll over and accept without scrutiny whatever is decided "on high" as "the norm", I am questioning why deliberately choose badly (I find it self-defeating).//
Allowing access to bank accounts online is risky. Banks must mitigate against the risks and as criminals become more sophisticated the banks must take steps to make their systems more resilient. Each chooses to do so in their own way. So the answer for you is simple: change to a bank that has adopted measures which you feel able to comply with. A word of warning though – things change and you may find that, having changed your bank the bank then changes its system, perhaps to one requiring the use of a mobile. Whatever your objections to them they are here to stay and if you want to take advantage of modern developments (such as online banking) you will have to have modern tools. You bought a computer to do so and have to ensure its software is updated to be compatible with your bank's ever-changing systems. It seems you may have to bite the bullet and get a mobile phone because detailing your objections on here will not make the bank change the arrangements it expects its customers to comply with. I have a relative who insists on undertaking all his expenditure in cash. He draws cash from the bank at the beginning of each month and spends the rest of the month going round various places paying his bills and buying goods. He is now finding life is becoming extremely awkward as fewer places accept cash payments for bills. He refuses to adapt and it's causing him unnecessary grief. That's what's really happening to you with this issue and you will find it consumes you to the point of distraction. And I'm sure you can do without that.
NJ, I accept that you would like to justify the bank requiring a mobile phone rather than the solutions like random number generators, etc. which work for others, but we clearly disagree. I know of an example where a telephone company providing landline telephony plus internet told a customer that they would not be able to come and restore the service following a breakdown unless the customer provided them with a mobile phone number - in order to have landline and internet it appears you must also have a mobile phone. I don't think you would be keen to justify that. If I needed a mobile phone I would find it useful, I don't and I am not happy that service providers are adding a layer to their entry criteria in this way (as opposed to others).
To repeat, I have no objection to anyone having a mobile phone for whatever reason - I don't want one and (as already clear) I don't want to be forced by a bank to acquire and run one just as a quirky way for me to get approval each time (other ways are available).
This thread has, including trolling effects, already gone on well beyond what my aim intended (just how much of a hurdle is the upcoming screening ? Time and again on the same computer is the answer). Thank you all for the discussion - I accept that I may be forced (quite reluctantly) to take my business elsewhere, could do without that bit of hassle. Meanwhile, I am clearly not the only one who is dissatisfied with this sort of thing proving that it is quite unnecessarily annoying folk.
To repeat, I have no objection to anyone having a mobile phone for whatever reason - I don't want one and (as already clear) I don't want to be forced by a bank to acquire and run one just as a quirky way for me to get approval each time (other ways are available).
This thread has, including trolling effects, already gone on well beyond what my aim intended (just how much of a hurdle is the upcoming screening ? Time and again on the same computer is the answer). Thank you all for the discussion - I accept that I may be forced (quite reluctantly) to take my business elsewhere, could do without that bit of hassle. Meanwhile, I am clearly not the only one who is dissatisfied with this sort of thing proving that it is quite unnecessarily annoying folk.
//…a telephone company providing landline telephony plus internet told a customer that they would not be able to come and restore the service following a breakdown unless the customer provided them with a mobile phone number - in order to have landline and internet it appears you must also have a mobile phone. I don't think you would be keen to justify that.//
Makes perfect sense, Karl. If your landline is out of order and you are expecting a visit, it makes sense for the engineer to have a way of contacting you if he is late/can’t come or whatever. Saves you and them inconvenience.
//I accept that I may be forced (quite reluctantly) to take my business elsewhere, could do without that bit of hassle.//
It would be far less hassle to get a basic mobile phone. You never know, you might even find it useful for other purposes, apart from logging on to your banking.
Makes perfect sense, Karl. If your landline is out of order and you are expecting a visit, it makes sense for the engineer to have a way of contacting you if he is late/can’t come or whatever. Saves you and them inconvenience.
//I accept that I may be forced (quite reluctantly) to take my business elsewhere, could do without that bit of hassle.//
It would be far less hassle to get a basic mobile phone. You never know, you might even find it useful for other purposes, apart from logging on to your banking.
[the rest was cut off because I used a "smiley"]
At then end of the day, Karl, only you can make such a decision. Me? I accept that I have to adapt to the new way some companies do things. It sometimes annoys me but I won’t let them drive me crackers; I simply comply in the easiest way I can. That’s not because I’m a “pushover” (far from it). But life’s too short to drive yourself barmy over trivia.
At then end of the day, Karl, only you can make such a decision. Me? I accept that I have to adapt to the new way some companies do things. It sometimes annoys me but I won’t let them drive me crackers; I simply comply in the easiest way I can. That’s not because I’m a “pushover” (far from it). But life’s too short to drive yourself barmy over trivia.
judge: "I have a relative who insists on undertaking all his expenditure in cash. He draws cash from the bank at the beginning of each month and spends the rest of the month going round various places paying his bills and buying goods. He is now finding life is becoming extremely awkward as fewer places accept cash payments for bills. He refuses to adapt and it's causing him unnecessary grief. " you're related to OG? PMSL