- A suspicious wave of computer fraud has been occurring recently.
- Several financial institutions are trying to solve the problem
- Its measurements obviously lie in digital identification and biometric tools
The increase in technology fraud in the financial sector has led Mastercard, Tamice, and Plaid to strengthen their systems with new tools designed to help banks and other institutions reduce the risk of remote customer incorporation.
While these companies are partnering to improve identity verification and streamline processes, there is growing concern about the potential dangers associated with biometric technologies.
Digital identification projects
Mastercard's partnership with Alloy aims to create a global solution that combines digital identity verification tools with an open financial infrastructure for incorporation through all means.
This holistic approach allows more financial institutions and technology companies to evaluate identities supposedly without compromising user privacy or convenience.
However, this approach raises questions about the true intentions behind such initiatives. As they always claim to help reduce fraud, but do not mention how these measures can also be used for mass surveillance, social control and oppression.
Sift has also expanded its platform by introducing new features to address growing threats of fraud.
With predefined method systems, enhanced policy abuse detection, and expanded research capabilities, Sift aims to improve accuracy and efficiency while facing increasingly complex threats.
Plaid's latest product updates aim to verify users more quickly and speed up the onboarding process, providing access to verified account holder data from more than 450 additional institutions. But will this really guarantee user security?
In addition, Plaid has introduced DMV-backed identity verification that allows authentication with driver's license numbers directly from DMV databases.
While it may seem like a positive step towards combating fraud, there is concern that these identification systems are an invasion of privacy, as well as the possible misuse of personal data.
Biometrics can be used for other purposes
These changes come with a promise to improve confidence and reduce breaches in the financial sector, but they also raise questions about the extent to which these companies are collecting personal information without consent or transparency.
The integration of biometric systems into digital identification programs is justified on the pretext of preventing fraud and other alleged security threats.
However, closer examination reveals that these measures can be used for mass surveillance, social control and oppression.
Biometrics represents one of the most reeling modern deceptions: tools that can be used for invasive purposes instead of protecting against identity theft or fraud.
The false sense of security provided by having digital accounts and biometric data can not only undermine the stability of digital platforms, but also create new vulnerabilities and increase the risk of massive data loss and abuse.
These identity tools could potentially exclude people from services, based simply on their inclusion or exclusion into databases. It makes a system where people can be blacklisted without any transparency or due process.
The danger in these systems for civilians is that biometric systems could facilitate authoritarian monitoring and control as they consolidate identities into verifiable unique profiles.
To prevent fraud, they insist on biometric systems.
