Mobile Phones And Bank Heists... Perfect Together
from the high-tech-theft dept
Who knew mobile phones were so integral to bank robbing? Last year, there was the famous story of the bank robber who would be chatting on her mobile phone while holding up a teller, and then there was the bank robber who tried to rob a bank by calling them up and demanding money (that one didn't work out so well). Still, it seemed a bit strange to see a story over at Textually about a bank that has been banning mobile phones for security reasons. Plenty of banks these days ask people not to use mobile phones for reasons of courtesy -- but this bank insists it's for security: "We ban cell phone use in the lobby," Senior Vice President Ralph Oster said, "because you don't know what people are doing." That seemed a little silly... but it was only 18 minutes later that Textually posted another story about gangs using camera phones in banks to plan their attack. Apparently, one member inside would snap photos of people withdrawing large sums of money, and then send the photos to accomplices outside, so they could mark the victim as they left the bank. This way, the victim is never directly followed out of the bank. Of course, it's unclear how common this -- or how useful. Also not particularly clear is how the police know this is what's happening. The article talks about two people who were mugged after leaving a bank -- but doesn't indicate how they know someone inside was taking camera phone photos at all. For all we know, they could simply have been mugged by someone on the street who saw them leaving a bank.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Depends on the Neighborhood and History
It is really not all that silly ------ in this apathetic, "what's in it for me, society" , when firms are prompted to take action -i t is usuallly for a good reason - sometimes the neighborhood could have had a history of problems - or customers may have been harrassed - which means they may decide to NOT visit that branch again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones or another device!
The banks could always install devices like some coffee shops have done in London that block the cell phone signals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phone etiquette
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone etiquette
I've never understood this type of bitching... Honestly, whats so different about hearing someone talk on a cell while walking down the street as compared to hearing someone talk to the person they are walking next to?
If you don't want to hear people talking, stop listening. It is completely rude to even insinuate that you think others should not be able to exercise the simple freedom of communications for your own greedy desires for silence. What an ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone etiquette
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone etiquette
What a generation gap we have, sigh. Silence is the natural state, it is being disturbed, you can't /won't see it because you want to do it. I am very tollerant of speeders, as I also enjoy a blast down the road. The difference is a matter of numbers; two people talking in person requires them to assemble on that spot. with cellphones, that barrier has been removed. I compare it to traffic enforcement cameras, the cop should have to actually see you and pull you over to ticket you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone etiquette
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cell phone etiquette
I think that until retail stores stop giving phone calls priority over those of us that actually go to the trouble of going to the store, they can stick it as far as worrying about people using their phones during a transaction.
There's nothing worse than waiting patiently in line for your turn at the checkout only to have the clerk stop to answer the phone for some schmuck who's too damn lazy to come to the store to find out if you have those new jeans in his size.
I don't talk on the phone during transactions because I happen to agree with you that it's rude -- but politeness is a two-way street. -Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've never understood this type of bitching... Honestly, whats so different about hearing someone talk on a cell while walking down the street as compared to hearing someone talk to the person they are walking next to?
Largely the number of decibels one must push out so the other party can hear the conversation on the other end of a cell phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useful evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RUDE???
How about I start kicking you out of establishments because you were rude enough to exist? WTF is wrong with someone talking? GOD, I can't believe you were RUDE ENOUGH TO MAKE ME HAVE TO LOOK AT YOU! You should be shot dead in the streeets for being so rude.
Sure, if they are interrupting the flow of the line, then that is another thing. But someone shoudl speak up and embarress them on the spot for being ignorant and oblivious, NOT for talking to someone.
As for the notion that banks are safer with cells blocked... that is backwards thinking. The FLAW in the process being exploited is that a 3rd party is able to observe the transactions. Make the transactions a little more secure, and suddenly you have absolutely no need to ban vital communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a business owner I can and will refuse to do business with anyone I choose, so long as my decision is not based on Race, Gender, Age, or any of the other protected classes.
If you are a 80 year old black women in a wheel chair, I'll still kick your @$$ out if you use a cell phone where there is a sign clearly posted that says "no cell phones."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh, the wiggle clause. Plenty of business owners used to discriminate against those people when they could. That's why there are now laws to protect at least some people from the likes of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is law somewhere else
Re: the signal blocking devices, those are being installed in prisions because from there convicts are organizing kidnappings, extortions and other crimes via cell phones (now, if someone calls from any public phone in a prision a recording first lets you know the fact).
So it is not so farfetched to think you'll be able to commit robbery via phone be it in a bank or from a prision cell, you just have to have the appropiate fear conditions and sufficient impunity among society. The solution is not banning phones, it is to really enforce the law, something that unfortunately is not happening in Mexico.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talking loud on cell phones
The microphones on mobile phones are extremely sensitive. I have seen studies showing that people can whipsper in the opposite direction of their cellular phone, and the mic's have still recorded sounds. This notion that we have to talk so loud relates directly to the post made by 'Haywood'. It is human nature to assume we have to yell for the person we can't see to hear us. Granted, naturalization of the cellular phone will occur as it did with the telephone, and eventually cellular quality will truly be comparable, but until then you have to be smarter than your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!
Yes, they are quite aware of the fact that you are trying to take away their freedoms for your own greedy gains, you self-righteous greedy piece of garbage.
Smoking was banned for health reasons, not because people were annoyed. If you're so damned anti-social that you can't tolerate hearing people talking, then I suggest you take your luddite hide to some remote stretch of forest and start making shoebox size packages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES! - Are you kidding?
Sokins in public places is banned because it is a health risk.
Prior to any ban people could opt to sit in a non-smoking section if they did not like being around smoke.
Governmental bans are not going to take place just because some people don't like things.
I am not a huge fan of cell phones at all times, however I am able to suck it up and just ignore it most of the time. I don't however want my government spending my tax dollars on legislation to ban cell phones. They already decide more than enough for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nextel Users
Being a Nextel user myself I feel I can make this comment. The one that annoys me the most is not the regular cell phone conversation, but the users having Nextel 2-way conversations. The phone comes with a mute/silent option. Does anyone beside me know how to use it? We don't need to hear that annoying chirp and both sides of the conversation.
The fact of the matter is it all boils down to arrogance and the total disregard for others, on the part of the person holding the conversation. It's a basic, "I'm important, screw what others think or feel" attitude that permeates almost all parts of society today. I blame it on the enhanced focus on self esteem.
There...that's the end of my rant which pertained little to the article.
PS: That self-esteem part was kind of a joke. Kind of…..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two sides to a story
Very few people actually intend to cause a disruption. Do you? Of course not!
Example: You're walking down the street, or you're waiting on line in a bank, and your cell phone goes off. You're considerate, and you have it set to vibrate, so people aren't forced to listen to the Star Wars theme you uploaded into your ring tone. You take the phone out, and it's your boss.
Question: Do you answer the phone? It might be important--your job may be on the line. On the other hand, your boss may have tickets to the ball game that he wants to give away, or wants to invite you and your spouse to a party. There's no way to figure out the importance of a phone call just based on who is calling.
What if it wasn't your boss? What if you don't recognize the number?
In a perfect world, we could communicate instantly without interfering with anybody other than the actual parties to the conversation. The message is encrypted and safe from the prying ears/eyes of others, including the government.
This is not a perfect world, though. That rude S.O.B. that is gabbing on his two-way "walkie talkie" cell phone with the volume set to "11" could just as easily be you receiving that very important call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two sides to a story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I have nothing against someone talking on a cell phone. By "a place like that" I meant a public place that is normally a quiet setting, where anybody talking on a cell phone could be easily heard by everybody and would be considered by many to be rude and obnoxious. Does that person have the right to talk on his cell phone? Of course. Does that make it the proper thing to do? Of course not. It's called "common courtesy" which is a concept lost on the majority of the population these days. I see people talking on the sidewalks, in malls, in busy stores, etc., and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem starts when it's a public but quiet setting, where the phone conversation doesn't get drowned out by "white noise" and is heard by all. That is when it becomes rude. And quite honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem with people using cell phones in quieter places, as long as they be considerate of others. I once held a cell phone conversation in a public library, but I went into a far back corner and talked softly so I didn't bother anybody else. And personally, I wouldn't want anybody listening in on my conversations. They're private.
Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. There are always emergency issues that have to be dealt with, and if it's apparent that's what's going on, I can understand and respect the situation. But in most cases where somebody has to take a call in such a place, they can excuse themselves and relocate to a more private location to take the call.
In banks, same deal, remove yourself from the vicinity of the general public and you'll be fine. The problem is that 99% of the offenders do not do that, but stand and talk while in line right next to other people. I don't know anybody who wouldn't find that annoying. But again, with banks it's much more of a problem with security. To deny that cell/camera phones are a security issue would be foolish, given the track record over the past couple of years.
I also wanna add a side not here. I believe banks and other businesses reserve the right to do things like ban cell phone usage. However, the government does not. I do not support government bans on smoking in public places, unless it's limited to government-owned locations such as city parks. Individual business and property owners are having one of their rights as Americans stripped away by the fact that they are no longer permitted to allow a certain type of non-legal activity on their own premises. Do I want smoking in public places? Of course not. But it's not up to our government to regulate something like that. If the government were to impose cell phone bans on local businesses, I would oppose it any way I could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know, and I don't care. Why in the world would it fall on me to solve the banks security problems? That is a matter for the bank to determine. When one finds a security problem, one has to fix the problem, not minimize the symptoms of it. Banning cells does not make the transaction invisible, and it would only make this type of social hacking more difficult, NOT impossible. You can still use hand signals without a cell phone last I checked. That's been happening for as long as we've had banks.
The banks could easily make teller transactions more private. Hell, drive up ATMs are far more private than the wide open teller counters at most banks. Why should that be acceptable?
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the only time I will use a teller (for withdrawals) is when I am getting a cashiers check, because I have always been in fear of someone seeing the transaction and taking advantage of the knowledge. At least with an ATM, I can prevent them from seeing how much I got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bank vs. in Airplane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With banks, I'm thinking of the camera phone issue, snapping shots of the layout of banks, positions of security cameras, etc. Granted it's not as big of a concern as some may think, and no it will not make the transaction 100% secure. There will never be a way to make it 100% secure, because we do not live in a perfect world. All I'm saying is I think there's a big enough security for banks to seriously consider a ban. I doubt cell phones could really be useful in the robbing process, unless somebody outside is feeding information to the thief inside the building, in which case they would make it as unnoticeable as possible that they're on a call. It's almost more of a preventive measure. If they actually went to the extreme of using jamming technology inside banks (which I do think is a bit overkill at this point), it would make it that much harder to pull off a precision robbery. And personally, I wouldn't really mind if they had security checkpoints at every entrance to a bank if I knew it would make my money safer. Nobody should put banks down for trying to make everybody's money safer, especially the way people worship money these days.
And in response to Anonymous Coward, see, now you posted a worthwhile suggestion, making teller stations more private. That wasn't so hard, was it? I just don't like it when people make vague demands without offering any ideas on how to accomplish the task. However, as for ATMs being more private, that may be, but safer? No. I have never used an ATM unless it's in a wide-open public place with plenty of witnesses around so that somebody can't pull a gun on my through their jacket pocket or something. Even if it's technically not as "private" in a bank at a teller station, it would probably be harder to rip somebody off there due to all the existing security measures in the bank (if statistics prove me wrong, I have no problem with that). And I actually haven't used an ATM even once in over 2 years. I mostly pay for stuff with my debit card, sometimes with checks, which is much safer than carrying cash. On the rare occasion I do withdraw cash for something, it's generally in small amounts and at a drive-through where it would be harder to rip somebody off. Oh, and I can't be certain, but it seems to me it wouldn't be very hard at all to subtly plant a wireless camera in close proximity to an ATM to spy on PIN number entries, what with all the technology available these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban supporter
... I didn't elaborate any further at all. I was just as vague in my second recomendation as I was in my first. And again, if a bank has a secuirty problem, that is THEIR problem, not mine. I am not the one who must solve their problem.
Or are you saying I shouldn't complain about the state of affairs becuase I am not in a position to do anything about it, so I should sit down and shut up?
You think others should not have/voice an opinion unless they are engineers capable of solving world hunger?
Banning cell phoes will not solve their problem. Placing that lovely metal embedded paint in the walls (as the movie theaters are proposing, because they are too afraid to remove distruptive patrons) will not solve their problems either, yet will likely yeild HUGE payoffs to the first few customers that sue them when one of these banks eventually gets held up, and none of the hostages can communicate with the outside world.
As for your concerns about ATM machines, yes there is an ongoing problem with those being "sniffed". Perps will actually add a card reader AND a camera. Gather a few card signatures and pins, wait a week or two, destroy the cameras visibility somehow, wait another week or two, then one night perform a dozen or so transactions in a row with cards they created using those signatures. You have to inspect the machine yourself to verify that this is not happening to the machine you are using.
And here, you voiced your own "concern" (that you didn't even know was already a large problem) yet you failed to provide a solution for this problem. I'm not offended by that, as you were, just wanted to let you know that you just offended yourself. in case you missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious future
I think most businesses will, but with public reaction it is hard to say which ones will succeed. Would you eat in a restaurant than banned cell phones? I would, happily, but I'm from a generation that is comfortable in missing a call or two, whereas I know some think that missing a call is appalling.
Distracted cell phone users are a problem -- some stats show that a 22 year old driver using a cell phone has the same reaction time as an 85 year old driver -- that is unacceptable out of basic common sense. The only way to solve it is to block it, don't give me hands-free answers -- there is no acceptable figure for driving distractions because you have the lives of countless stangers in your responsiblity.
People are stupid, so laws and technology will evolve to protect us, but always after a tragedy, rarely before.
Cell phones seem to be the new ciggarette.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talking loud on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talking loud on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#28
I own a cell phone only because my daughter got me one and put me on her family plan. My cell phone rings about 4 times a year. Last year I took it with me to phoenix and back on a three hour flight each way. On the way back from phoenix, just as the plane was arriving at the gate, my phone rang. I had never shut it off. It was on the whole time. I didn't realize it was on until it rang. I guess my phone being on didn't effect the flight instruments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #28
And on a final note to Anonymous Coward (nice name btw), go back and read carefully. All I did was state that because of the safety issue, I don't generally use ATM machines. I didn't spout off about somebody needing to fix that, and without having any suggestions on how to do so. Everybody is certainly entitled to an opinion, and often those opinions differ, which is fine. But there's a fine line between voicing a concern and needlessly complaining about a problem. I will admit that I haven't always followed my own advice. I'm human and I make mistakes like anybody else. But when I see a problem and decide to voice an opinion, I usually try to offer some sort of useful suggestion on how to make it better.
And now, since I am apparently not accomplishing anything here, I will take my own advice and move on to more constructive activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #28
You most certianly have accomplished much.
Any time you inspire/invoke/whatever critical thinking in others, you have accomplished something.
If as a society we ever just accept what is told to us, without looking for others perspectives on the matter first, then we will be doomed.
CHALLENGE EVERYTHING
Thank you for thoughts.
PS: the name is because I am too lazy to come up with something witty so I leave it blank. TechDirt was kind enough to fill in a witty name for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
annoying
2 uh helo,
1 hows it going,
2 um not bad i guess
1 you going out tonight
2 I dont really want to talk right now
1 listen I got to go the person in the other stall keeps answering me.
token cell phone call joke.
The other annoying part no one has mentioned is you cant tell people that are insane talking to themselves like I do from the people talking on a phone, and even then you dont know who they are talking to..
hey I got an idea, give all the crazys in the world a blue tooth earbud and as they rant and rave to the voices in their head people will just think they are having a heated phone conversation with someone and will once again be accepeted into society instead of being shunned for being so crazy.
Just a thought.
I have to agree and repeat what some people have already said, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SHOUT INTO YOUR CELL PHONE FOR THE OTHER PERSON TO HEAR YOU, IF YOU DO THEN HANG THE HELL UP AND GET A NEW PHONE! and if you have a bad connection its probly intentional sheilding of the building you are in and you should hang up and call them later when your hurling your deathmachine down the highway changing lanes without signaling going 20 miles over the speed limit trying to dial up your friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Cell phone etiquette" "YES!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EMP please
Global EMP anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phones supposedly don't work in flight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, if from the time you wake up till you go to sleep you are angry at everything, than you should kill yourself (as the problem lies within, not with others. You may be so disturbed to feel otherwise).
Are you going to defend yourself? Your right to be insane? Your right to wave your dick in the air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm havin' a buger pickins of a time, R U?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usage of Mobile Phones in Bank Lobby
Your revert on this required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]