- FST Media

Fighting next generation fraud with visibility
and data intelligence
Top row (from left to right): Michael Douman, Head of Business & Clinical Analysis, BUPA; Jim McGugan, i2 Business Unit, IBM Global;
Matthew Keaney, General Manager, Financial Crime Management, CBA; Matthew Tregoning, Regional Manager – Investigations,
Westpac; Geoff Campbell, General Manager, Security Advisory & Investigations, CBA; Richard Collard, World Wide Business
Development – Fraud, AML, Risk, IBM; Ross McKenzie, Head of Security Governance, Westpac; Trevor Fairall, Head of Financial
Intelligence, Macquarie Bank; Nigel Phair, Director, Centre for Internet Safety. Bottom row (from left to right): Nagib Kassis, Head
of IT & Business Alignment, Allianz; Erin Dogan, Chief Engineer, Network, IAG; Michelle James, Head of IT Risk & Operations, AMP;
Jenny Lambert, General Manager, Claims Services, Operations, Allianz; Shane De Kauwe, APAC Business Executive, Financial Crime,
Law Enforcement and Security, IBM; Tony Vitiello, ANZ Sales Lead, IBM.
FST Media and IBM hosted an exclusive
roundtable luncheon with Divisional Heads of
Fraud, Risk and Security from Australia’s leading
banks and insurance companies to discuss trends
and emerging fraud, risk and security threats facing
the industry. The discussion featured Nigel Phair,
Director, Centre for Internet Safety, University of
Canberra as guest speaker.
Nigel Phair, Centre For Internet Safety:
Exactly 10 years ago I was sitting down in Canberra
at the Australian High Tech Crime Centre which
Financial Services Technology Media
where the market meets
was part of the Australian Federal Police and
we had a phone call that kicked off our first
phishing investigation.
It was a young guy living in Surry Hills. He was
a Russian, and he was responsible for a pretty
dodgy looking Commonwealth Bank website. We
had never come across phishing before, we did
not know what it was, or what was going to
happen next. We worked with the New South Wales
Police, went out to his house, seized computer
equipment and arrested him. Unfortunately we
lacked evidence to proceed with the matter.
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
“[customers] are
demanding more and
more from whatever
device or service they
are provided.”
– Geoff Campbell, CBA
We were trying to get police interested in doing
online investigations across the whole spectrum.
We were often told, “Well, they are too hard to
investigate... The people are overseas,”
These days there is much richer data out there
and we leave much more information about
ourselves in the public domain. I would argue
investigations should be getting easier for that
reason, and there should be more of them. And
that goes for organisations doing their own internal
investigations.
If I was a criminal, I would be looking at it
from the other perspective. People put so much
information about themselves in out there, that it
is pretty easy to start guessing things like password
resets, a mother’s maiden name, which school I
went to, favourite pet’s name, all those password
prompts are probably on my Facebook page if you
looked close enough.
It is that generational change where people
are prepared to go to those sites and put all
this information about them out there on the
pretext that their friends will do exactly the
same. It is really rich data both for investigators
and criminals.
Shane De Kauwe, IBM:
“How is it that people
volunteer all that
personal information
to Facebook…”
– Nagib Kassis, Allianz
2
The Commonwealth
Bank was the first to market in Australia with an
application to allow Facebook users to transact.
Obviously there is a commission and fee benefit to
the Commonwealth Bank by capturing potentially
new customers, especially young. The fact is there
is just so much information out there and identity
theft so easy. But there is a flip side. For instance
one of our security guys is also looking at it as a
source of authentication. Your photos on Facebook
for instance, they are all tagged, they have got
names. If you are able to pull that data out and
authenticate someone, you could pull up three
photos and say ‘Pick your friend.’
There is a whole new set of risks but there is also
a whole new way of doing business.
Geoff Campbell, CBA:
The only challenge
with that is the customers themselves. They are
demanding more and more from whatever device
or service they are provided. They do not want
these additional ‘click on this’ questions. They just
want to get on with what they are doing, and they
expect the service provider to deliver the security
in the background.
Jim McGugan, IBM Global: Well, it is
interesting, because we have been quite excited by
facial recognition, which is the state of the art. It
has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years,
and it works pretty well now. Unlike biometrics
there is not the same consumer resistance. How
many bank customers are really prepared to come
in and have their fingerprints taken or have their
retinas scanned? That is not going to happen.
But facial recognition is something that you can
essentially capture more passively. So for instance
at an ATM you could take 10 images from 10
successive uses of someone’s ATM card – and then
you could have their face really well characterised.
If on the 50th use you see a face that does not look
like the registered face and you can raise an alarm.
To Geoff’s point, that is very non-invasive, you are
not asking additional questions or introducing a
whole bunch of additional rigmarole. But it adds
to security.
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: With a bank that we
are working with in Singapore – and hopefully we
are going to start with some financial institutions
in Australia – we will be able to provide one to
one facial recognition linked to a credit card or a
Facebook account, that is almost instantaneous.
We are working with this particular bank, and our
software allows us to take 10 images of someone
using an ATM. As those images are taken it is
makes a composite view of that one to one facial
recognition relationship. If someone other than the
card holder uses the card in the ATM – for instance
in a skimming operation – this systems would
reject it. Or you could have a business process that
sends the customer a text so they can authenticate
themselves. It depends on the bank.
It ultimately has to be customer opt-in or optout. You also need to remember from an IBM
perspective and from an Asia Pacific view, that not
all countries have the protections that we do.
Basically a credit card fraud in Australia, has
$50 liability for the consumer depending on the
terms and conditions of the card. Whereas some
countries, if someone empties your bank account
– you are the victim – that is it. So I would be
interested in a discussion around the safeguards
that this new generation would be happy with?
Would they actually think that using a photo of
themselves to authenticate a transaction is okay.
Many customers probably would be fine because of
the gizmo effect of it.
I am pretty sure most of you have no idea that
we had a facial recognition product that you could
attach to Facebook, or could work on a credit card
to reduce skimming. I guess that leads to another
question. Is technology moving too fast to catch
up? Is it happening too quickly?
Nagib Kassis, Allianz: I could say it is probably
in the execution. So if you take Facebook as an
example, how is it that people volunteer all that
personal information to Facebook, and some of
it is quite personal. After all if you were asked by
someone off the street to provide all that information
you would say no, because you do not know what
that company is going to do with the information.
Facebook’s success really relies on the fact that
it tells you what they know about you. When an
individual knows and can see what a company
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
knows about them, they are more inclined to
voluntarily provide that information.
There is also a question about whether someone
would be comfortable with their photograph being
taken and used as an authentication mechanism
through facial recognition. If they are told that that
is how the information is being used, and it is for
their own benefit, then they will probably be more
inclined to participate.
You need to tell people what you know about
them. If bank’s were a bit more forthcoming for
example about what information they know about
an individual, then people would probably be more
comfortable because you are volunteering that this
is the information we know about you.
There is that element of distrust, and Facebook
provides all that feedback directly to its users.
This is all we know about you, this is what we think
you would like. In some countries Facebook users
are already using facial recognition to do their
own authentication, but they are using the
recognition software that Facebook has provided
to identify friends.
It is already in trial, and people are participating
actively so that Facebook can further enhance the
algorithms that are working in the background. It is
social participation and it is voluntary participation
if you like.
Jim McGugan, IBM Global: I have to agree. I
find the younger generation’s willingness to put
everything out on Facebook or Twitter remarkable.
In fact I had a fascinating conversation with a
couple of insurance claims investigators who told
me about investigating staged accidents, where
two people purport to have run into each other
and claim not to know each other. They told me
that one of their best investigative tricks is to
go on Facebook since everybody is made their
friends network completely open. You discover
their friends on Facebook, or that they are a friend
of a friend on Facebook, and it just totally blows
a hole in the claim. They said that this happens
remarkably often.
Jenny Lambert, Allianz: Yes, I can validate
that. I mean, social media for us from a claims fraud
point of view is an invaluable tool. Just in the last
quarter I could list 30 claims where we have either
reduced the payment or repudiated a claim as a
result of social media. So we had a guy who had
CAT scans of a spinal injury, while his Facebook
page showed him doing commercial cleaning and
surfing at the same time.
Nagib Kassis, Allianz: Even the geo-coding
of images has helped dramatically. For instance
someone says this is a photo taken at point of
incident but because they took it on their iPhone,
from geocoding we know that it was taken round
the corner from their house, as opposed to the
location they claimed. So it does add value,
without a doubt, but it does introduce risk. It is a
matter of finding the balance around preventing
leakage, but also increasing revenue retention,
increasing acquisition and reducing acquisition
costs. Technology definitely plays a vital role in
that, but at the same time people will find ways to
exploit that technology to their benefit.
Matthew Tregoning, Westpac:
Today’s
generation will put everything out on Facebook,
including their date of birth but on the other hand
they are so mindful of authority and not telling
anyone in authority their information. In that sense
they are protective of their information.
We do a lot of work with Facebook, it is so good
to be able to link to it. That is particularly the
case with ID takeovers. We do a lot of work with
ID takeovers and social media and linking crooks
together. We use social media to see who they are
associated with.
“I find the younger
generation’s willingness
to put everything
out on Facebook or
Twitter remarkable.”
– Jim McGugan, IBM
Jenny Lambert, Allianz:
Staged accidents
certainly do occur. The recent includes its use
for money laundering and the involvement of
organised criminals. This happens a lot in Victoria.
But predicting where the next one is going to be
is really hard. If anybody has managed to do that,
good luck to them, and sharing that detail would be
great. Staged accidents tend to come in waves. The
odd one may come frequently, but the organised
ones that are really around large amounts of money
are sustained over a period of time. Using the
information around known associates to prevent
the underwriting of risk is something that we are
starting to use now. We are just starting to take the
intelligence information that we have and using
that at the front .
Shane De Kauwe, IBM:
Yet it is self-evident
right?
Jenny Lambert, Allianz: It does not mean there
is something wrong, but why take the chance.
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: I would suggest that
you would make a financial decision on someone’s
associates. But maybe those associations would
flag that you should take a second look before
approving an insurance claim.
From a banking sense, when you are about to
give someone a credit card or a loan you score them
then you might say “Well, this score is a little bit too
close, considering the additional risk”. Maybe we
need to ask a few more questions before we let that
cash leave the door.
From an information management perspective,
it is just data, and you guys are actually building
up this repository of really cool data. What I want
one of you guys to do is link it back to the start of
the process.
“We do a lot of work
with ID takeovers and
social media and linking
crooks together.”
– Matthew Tregoning,
Westpac
3
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
“You could be making
a difference tomorrow
just by sharing your
information between
your disparate
business units.”
– Shane De Kauwe, IBM
Nagib Kassis, Allianz: You raise a good point.
We are building up good quality data, we are
enriching that data with third party sources that
are now available, that helps us do some of that
decision making up front or at point of claim. But
my comment back to the forum is, if we deny a
claim from an insurance point of view because
it contains fraudulent activity, or potentially
fraudulent activity, that individual might go to a
bank tomorrow and request a credit card. That
information is not shared. So we continue to allow
this propagation of potential fraudulent activity
outside of the sphere of insurance, even though
we have a view that the individual is trying to
defraud the organisation. How, as an industry do
we respond to it?
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: Before you start looking
at sharing information outside of your organisation
what if I was to tell you that most of you do
not even share your own information between
your insurance arm and your credit card arm?
Which you are entitled to do. So let uss not even
look outside yet. The Commonwealth Bank for
instance has 17 business silos just in Australia.
I have formed the view that they are not sharing
information across those silos. So is that great for a
fraudster? Yet the intelligence and the board group
all fall under one group head. Ultimately, while it
would be great for you all to share your information,
I think you could be making a difference tomorrow
just by sharing your information between your
disparate business units.
Tony Vitiello, IBM: Why is this any different to
the credit reference association?
Matthew Keaney, CBA:
“Fraud, from most
examples we have been
talking, is small dollars.”
– Michelle James, AMP
It is not, it is not. So
there is already an existing service. I would have
to check whether insurance is involved. But
certainly between financial institutions, and the
telcos leveraging off the VADA service, there is the
sharing of fraud information.
Jim McGugan, IBM Global:
You just look at
credit reporting agencies, and in most countries
there is now a web of regulations. People are
allowed to see their credit report, they are allowed
to see what people have reported on them, allowed
to challenge it. There is typically an ombudsman
somewhere that will get involved, and there is a
huge web of regulations around that.
Jenny Lambert, IBM:
4
From an insurance point
of view, it is interesting how often claims are
withdrawn or reduced as soon as you mention
it is going to be investigated. But if you look at
the overall percentage that go through to a
criminal conviction, which is the proof of the fraud,
it is a very low percentage. As to the capacity of
the insurance industry to be able to go ahead and
do the brief, you have virtually got to have
everything tied up with a ribbon on top for law
enforcement to proceed successfully. And a lot of
it is small fraud.
Michelle James, AMP:
I want to bring you
back to your first question of what is important
to individuals in the fraud space. So I would ask
the question of internal versus external, and
the appetite of your business to wear these costs.
So fraud, from most of the examples that we
have been talking, it is small dollars. It does add up,
but quite often the businesses are willing to accept
that risk.
My viewpoint is to ask which is the bigger issue,
internal or external fraud, and why?
My concerns from a fraud perspective are the
newer threats, for instance around the activists,
and the threat of the damage to the organisation.
So whilst we have to continue to address individual
fraudulent activity much of it is small bikkies
compared to the damage someone can do to you by
damaging you in the public arena and causing the
customers to lose faith and trust in you.
From an AMP perspective, we are looking after
their retirement, or their nest egg, and I suppose it
is the same with the banking. It is like if we screw
up, they can really lose out. We have been talking
a lot about individual fraud. Well we have got the
fraud team, and then they are on that type of fraud.
So what I am more worried about is the fraudulent
behaviour by activists or hacktivists, and the serious
damage they can do if they get in take our data, not
necessarily for monetary gain, but for their cause.
Jim McGugan, IBM Global: I like your point,
and I would say from the customers I have talked
with, there is a fairly bright line around things that
involve reputational risk, like internal fraud, or
somebody skimming trust accounts of the elderly.
And I would say money laundering would be in
the same category.
With external fraud however, I think that is
something that more often than not involves a
rough and ready ROI analysis. As you say, most
frauds are small. You obviously need to deter them,
but at least most places I have been people apply
more of an ROI mentality to the external fraud,
would that be fair?
Michelle James, AMP: I would agree, and that
is what my concern is, because some of the controls
against those small time frauds are the controls we
need against that larger reputational risk attempt.
The board has agreed to a certain level of risk
appetite. What I am worried about is the fact that it
takes a while to get those numbers up.
Matthew Keaney, CBA: The issue that keeps
me awake at night from a reputational perspective
is not hacktivists, but it is the anti-money
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
laundering, it is the sanctions that we have
seen impact Barclays, the HSBC and others.
That is the one thing that I think has a true,
real, opportunity to negatively impact brand, value
and reputation.
Michelle James, AMP: So it is internal. It was
poor processes. When you look at it in hindsight
there was obviously so many areas where it should
have been picked up.
But that is what I am saying, because when
people lose faith in your ability to manage that
business, they will walk away.
Jenny Lambert, Allianz: I think that depends
on how you actually manage the scenario. I am
sure every organisation around this table has had
incidents of large internal fraud – it depends upon
the organisation what constitutes “large”. It is how
you deal with it that affects your reputation. So you
have to demonstrate that you have a zero tolerance,
and that you are prepared pursue it through to
criminal charges, and that you do not accept it.
Then you put your hand up and say “Yes, there
were procedural breakdowns internally.” If you
do that I do not believe that your customer base
will say “This is a bad organisation”. If you have
recurrences of that over time, for instance three
$17 million incidents then yes it is going to hurt
you. But it is how you present yourself to the public
and to your customers that is important from the
perspective of reputational damage.
What about the slightly different angle on that.
There is a recent case where an activist took some
ANZ bank letterhead paper, and made a press
release, right?
Michelle James, AMP: But it is not even just the
journalist, because this is the thing in the age of
Facebook and Twitter. As soon as this news comes
out, that is out there. That is the thing that does
the damage. We can have a great response, we have
got this media person that is going to front up and
tell them it is a fraud, it is a mistake, however it has
gone out, the ripples are hitting out in the pond.
That is probably the new risk. Will we see a surge
in cybercrime as a service? We might actually start
to see people buying these services just to add
reputational damage of other organisations. And
that is a risk.
Nigel Phair, Centre for Internet Safety:
I think a lot of organisations do not rehearse their
incidence response. They do not practice getting
out there on the front foot with the media.
You can also extrapolate that into fraud. If you
look at the Australian Crime Commission’s work
into serious and organised investment fraud, it is
exactly the same thing. People set up all these dodgy
websites, and they are on the phone to investors.
These are seasoned, mature investors, who then
get on the phone to their investment advisors who
then type the same thing into Google. They get the
same websites, and they are self-validating each
other And they get suckered into it.
Matthew Tregoning, Westpac: If I can just go
back to Michelle’s previous question about internal
versus external fraud. From my perspective, or
Westpac’s perspective the biggest thing is that
internal fraud is starting to flow into external
fraud. We have a fairly close working relationship
with the other financial institutions, I think that
it is probably affecting them as well. And that is
where the real reputational risk comes from.
You might have a staff member who sells
information, as a result, $200,000 is lost, but then
you have got the reputational side of trying to
restore our reputation to where we were prior to
the fraud, and that is probably going to cost a lot
more than $200,000.
Matthew Keaney, CBA: The amount of money
that we would lose to external fraud today is the
same as we were losing 10 years ago. And you think
about the growth of the bank and its business in
that time, that is a pretty good effort.
So I think the challenge we have is this; I think
we are very good at using the information that
we know about, so we know that that address is
bad, we know that customer is bad, we know that
licence is bad.
To your point earlier Shane, there is just so much
information we have got access to now, how do we
identify the right bits that we should leverage into
our forward looking capability. Then how do we
build that ROI to actually warrant the investment?
Because our external consultants and our internal
IT resources are just so expensive. So you cannot
build the business cases, that is the reality. But
how do we use that grey information around social
networks and the relationships that people have?
Because as I say, the black and white information
we are really good with. It is the stuff in the middle,
and there is so much of it, we are not so good with.
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: I work with the Singapore
government and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and
they have a division which just blows me away. They
are looking at fraud and crime across the whole
world, and then proactively saying to themselves
“Can this apply to us?”. They look at terrorism the
same way. “This attack that just happened, could it
happen here today? How would we respond, how
would we rate ourselves?”
We do extreme scenario planning. We ask what
if this event happened here. For instance what if
Sydney got taken offline? What would happen?
You obviously need to take into account what the
risks and probabilities of those sorts of events are,
and then plan potentially for the worst case should
that ever occur.
“A lot of organisations
do not rehearse their
incidence response.”
– Nigel Phair, Centre for
Internet Safety
“The amount of money
that we would lose to
external fraud today is
the same as we were
losing 10 years ago.”
– Matthew Keaney, CBA
5
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
“The business case
for justifying security
investment would be
straight forward if you
knew how much security
incidents cost.”
– Ross McKenzie,
Westpac
But I think back to business cases, ROI and
future threat. I certainly do not have the answer,
because we battle it every day. But how do we
better take business cases forward? How do we
factor in a realistic pragmatic way, the future threat
environment? So we have business cases that never
get up until we have actually had the problem. And
that is the challenge.
I think sometimes we need be a little bit more
innovative in our business cases, and partner
with the business on another initiative. There is
some major action happening at the moment just
at a customer analytics level, and talking about
external data. How good would that external data
be if we got our hands on it from fraud detection
or internal fraud perspective. Those teams would
never get a business case up to say “Can I go out
and get this”, “Can I purchase this data?”, “Can I
put it through this massive sausage machine to get
all these insights out of it?” But our business areas
can because they can put the case together around
revenue and ROI.
Ross MacKenzie, Westpac:
In the banking
sector, we may not know how many internal
security incidents have occurred on any given day
or how much each of those incidents have cost
an organisation – that would require industry
wide sharing of internal data. The business case
for justifying security investment would be fairly
straight forward if you knew across the industry
how much each security incident costs.
Matthew Keaney, CBA: You are talking about
ROI and business cases, then back to your first
comment, Shane, which was zero tolerance, which
you said you did not want to talk about. But it
kind of leads us into that sort of space, that if it is
based on a business case then is there really a zero
tolerance? Is zero tolerance Utopia?
“I am aware of different
frauds around the
globe because I have
a great worldwide
team which is feeding
me that information.”
– Michelle James, AMP
6
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: Look, the only reason I
talk about zero tolerance, is because I do not believe
the other method works. That is a personal thing.
Because all fraudsters know the numbers when
they can try and get away with. And they know
that even if you find out, you are not going to do
anything about it. So they will just hit you time and
time again. They are like ants eating an elephant.
Eventually the ants are going to overwhelm the
elephant, it just takes longer.
Matthew Keaney, CBA: I would challenge
that Shane. I think that particularly around retail
banking we have a very good sense of how much
fraud costs us; we have a very good sense of our
appetite for how much we are prepared to lose.
And, we have very good measures by which we can
manage that day to day. Again I would challenge
your comments from earlier that “We do not know
what happened yesterday”.
Geoff Campbell, CBA: But that is where I would
throw it back to the IBM people around the table.
This is where you can add value to these business
cases. This is where you as a global organisation
can bring to the table the over-the-horizon piece.
You can demonstrate what you have seen around
the globe, you can provide the specific examples,
and that helps to build the business case. That
way we do not have to go round trying to build
it all ourselves because you are supplying that
information to us.
Michelle James, AMP:
I think that is a fair
criticism. I am aware of different frauds around
the globe because I have a great worldwide team
which is feeding me that information. And we
do not actively go out to our customers and say
to them “Hey, this is where we are seeing a
growth in this particular threat.” I think that is a
valid criticism.
Nagib Kassis, Allianz:
Because you could do
that by not revealing which company it happened
to, just the nature of the threat, and the nature of
the threat alone is enough for our organisations to
at least be aware of it and put it on our radar. And
if there is a potential impact we can then put some
provisions in place to protect against it.
Jim McGugan, IBM Global: Well, I would say if
you read the Financial Times then you will know
most of the world wide trends. For instance every
bank in England is currently reviewing its AML,
that is no secret. First party fraud is a big deal. We
are hearing from most of the US banks and a lot of
the European that they need to do more about first
party fraud.
Matthew Keaney, CBA: We have been hearing
that for about a decade. That is not meant flippantly,
but that is a fact, and I have not seen anyone come
up with an approach yet that aids institutions in
working through that. And institutions have not
helped themselves either.
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: Well, going back to my
original statements, I do not believe zero tolerance
is achievable. As a business if you have levels that
you are measuring, and therefore you have some
sort of tolerance support mechanism, I think that
is a fair answer.
To risk, I think fraud is a term that needs to just
morph with risk. If we were looking for one name
to put over the top, it seems to me that it is risk. I do
not see from a technology, or a fraud investigator’s
perspective that the process to fix it is different.
At the end of the day, it comes down to three
tenets; analytics, case management, and being able
to visualise or simplify a complex event so that you
can do something about it. And I do not think there
is any vendor in the world that does it all.
Fighting next generation fraud with visibility and data intelligence
They have these specialisations that make sense
across the board. If there was one thing that you all
could do it would be to honestly create that central
repository where all your lines of business are
getting access to data. In five years if organisations
were taking that repository back into the business
proactively so that it becomes an asset, I think
losses would be lower.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is like
drinking from the fire hose. And we are adding to
the fire hose every day. That does not mean it is not
achievable.
Just before you go Nigel, can you talk about the
difference between a curated and a non-curated
app store.
Nigel Phair, Centre for Internet Safety:
So if we look at apps there are essentially four main
platforms in Australia. We have got the Apple store,
which has got about half the market share. We have
got the Google owned Android store, which has got
about the other half.
Basically you have got Apple and you have got
Google, two completely different ecosystems. Apple
has a highly regulated ecosystem for various reasons.
They take a third cut of apps, and they look at what
goes on in there. If you look at Google Android, it is
the complete opposite. It is an open store.
The stats tell us that whilst they have both
got about the same amount of market share,
developers make five times more money out of an
Apple app then they do out of a Google app. And
that is because of the culture of the people on
Android. Those users are the younger generation
and they are less likely to pay for apps. So vendors
are making their money out of in-app advertising
or selling your details to marketers, or from a
freemium model. So that in a nutshell is the curated
versus non-curated market that we have now. The
Android one is quite insecure, because you can put
up anything, basically.
“The Andriod is quite
insecure, because
you can put up
anything, basically.”
– Nigel Phair, Centre for
Internet Safety
Shane De Kauwe, IBM: In summary, fraud
is multi-channel. It is internal, external, AML,
sanctions, digital. The take-out is that it is a multichannel challenge for organisations which is
constantly evolving. We are certainly trying to get
on the front foot as an organisation within IBM and
to bring ideas out to market to help you take on
some of those discrete challenges along the way.
*
Financial Services Technology Media
where the market meets
About FST Media
FST Media produces the most successful technology conferences,
roundtables and publications for the banking, insurance and
wealth management sectors across the Asia Pacific region. With
extensive management experience in conference production,
journalism and business development, FST Media prides its
reputation on unparalleled access to senior financial services
executives, and the delivery of high-quality information on trends
and disruptions in the financial services sector.
About IBM
IBM is a global technology and innovation company that stands for
progress. With operations in over 170 countries, IBMers around the
world invent and integrate hardware, software and services to help
forward-thinking enterprises, institutions and people everywhere
succeed in building a smarter planet.