Christopher de León
Mizzou Online ID – 444531 crd3n3@mail.missouri.edu English 1000 Exposition and Argumentation
The Resistance Toward ATMs It is widely believed that the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) is a fusion of several different technological inventions throughout the early 1960s. Originating from Luther Simjian’s Bankograph, the ATM is intended to allow its users to complete basic transactions without the assistance of a bank teller (Automated Teller Machines, 2010). Today, many people actually resist the use of ATMs because of the cyber and physical risks associated with their use. This technology is widely opposed due to shortcomings on security, the increased cost of usage, and a non-existent human interface. Though the ATM was meant to provide and ensure users banking satisfaction, these limitations, through error and lack of immediate transparency, prevent the simplicity and efficiency that the machine was intended to provide. First and foremost, ATMs are a threat to the security of both the financial institutions and their account holders. There are three key vulnerabilities presented when using an ATM. There is a threat to physical security, a threat to virtual security, and the threat of fraud. Physical security is at stake given that a machine is somehow broken in to. If you take 5 minutes to scour the Internet, you will find a plethora of reports from various cities where ATMs were physically broken in to and robbed. In 2014 alone, over 619 explosive attacks in Europe, where the early ATM originated, resulted in their physical robbery (Bonessi, 2015). By physically robbing an ATM, thieves cause irreparable damage, often emptying the cash and abandoning the machine at the expense of the financial institution. Most ATM transactions are not internet-accessible, putting any kind of stored personal information of account holders at risk when these physical robberies occur (Kesselman, 2013). However, for that reason, digital theft is becoming increasingly scalable and common. Both the financial institution and the customer is at risk of having their card information hacked by criminals through online computer systems. Malware, a type of software designed to disable computer systems such as the ATM, gives a hacker control to withdraw any amount of money he or she desires (Kitten, 2010). The Wall Street Journal reported a study from FICO, a credit scoring analytics firm, that concluded “From January to April 9, 2015, the number of attacks on debit cards used at ATMs reached the highest level for that period in at least 20 years” (Sidel, 2015). Further, counterfeit debit cards are being made by these criminals to carry out purchases online and in store on the account holders’ behalf. This kind of activity is difficult to track and regulate, often leaving account holders responsible for the debt owed. More common than both the physical and virtual threats to an account holder’s security, is the threat of fraud. Chuck Somers, Vice President of ATM Security and Systems with Diebold, the global ATM supplier, said, “the fraud typically occurs via the attachment of external skimmers onto the machine with some sort of a PIN recording device” (Field, 2011). Skimming is becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to detect, and the greatest concern is how easy it is to obtain the cardholder information.
Seeing as how this is non-violent theft, it’s the most discrete and common vulnerability with respect to the security of ATMs. Unfortunately, Somers says that, “even the people who are out there taking the biggest risks, either attaching the skimming devices or redeeming the fraudulent cards ... even if they do get arrested, even if they do get prosecuted, they do pretty soft time in a local jail" (Field, 2011). Secondly, ATMs have presented an increased cost in banking. There are many fees, penalties, and surcharges associated with the usage of ATMs. These costs have caused banking customers to return to old-fashioned bookkeeping rather than deal with the margin of error or malfunctions that might cause an overdraft fee that they can’t afford. In Remix Peebles reports that, “in 1996 America had 140,000 ATMs, only a third of which charged fees to anyone. Today that number has grown to 371,000—or nearly five times the number of bank offices—with 89 percent charging fees to at least some users” (619). This number has grown exponentially to improve the profitability of these machines and that profit accounts for the losses experienced by theft on behalf of the financial institutions. Further, as new ways to deposit and withdrawal funds are introduced, so do the banks and credit unions set various fees forward, which affects people by intensifying the competition between cash and card. Access to cash is not a choice for the lower class but a daily necessity (Peebles, 621). Avoiding these fees also presents an issue with the convenience an ATM is meant to provide. An individual may be charged a fee if he or she overdraws on their account, uses an ATM that doesn’t belong to their financial institution, and sometimes even for making deposits or withdrawing large sums of cash. Not only is an account holder restricted to banking at one financial institution without paying a penalty, but also an ATM user at that institution cannot always rely on the receipt received from these machines. The balance may not reflect checks that have been written and received or debit transactions that may be pending, causing overdraft. The burden of ATM fees does not represent what Peebles refers to as, “a necessary component of a healthy economy” (621) as it thrives on the transfer of wealth from the lower to upper class, using these fees as a means of creating institutional profitability. Lastly and most simple, the ATM is resisted for its non-existent human interface. There are many cultural and political biases that affected the ongoing use of the ATM. Most obviously is that the original ATM was supported by a digital interface that made strict use of written instructions. In fact, it wasn’t until 2010 that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated that all new ATMs be vocal and supported with Braille keypads (Gaskins, 2015). Banking customers have different abilities and understandings than that assumed in the design of machines. Curan alludes to the fact that these machines are only meant to be accommodating in “general terms,” which poses an inconvenience to a population of users that span from young adults to pensioners, and strengthens the threat to account holder security (4). Though advancements have been made, there are still frustrations expressed by older generations of banking customers who would spend less time at the bank if they were able to seek the aid of a representative, rather than figure out how to use a computer system that they’re unfamiliar with. Additionally, these machines introduce user errors, as they dispense cash before returning the users card. This valuable form of identity could easily be forgotten and left behind, in which case no personnel is present to remind the customer of (Rikower, 2011). All in all, it’s evident that knowing the customer and forming a relationship with them leads to a higher level of banking satisfaction (Curan, 4). Today’s financial system is the product of an evolution in social and technological innovation. As Langdon Winner notes, “technologies are not merely aides to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity,” (595) even if sometimes, as is the case with the ATM, unintended negative consequences are brought to light in the technologies evolution. In response to progress, it’s first important to minimize these risks faced by the account holders, who are the customers of this business and recipients of these services. These unintended consequences that have caused much resistance and apprehension—the shortcomings, excessive penalties and lack of quality service— echo Winners’ notion of technological somnambulism; We, the innovators, often “sleepwalk” through the development of technology that is meant to enhance “human existence,” as is the case with the ATM, disregarding the user experience (598).

Works Cited
“Automated Teller Machines.” History.com. 2010. A+E Networks. 30 Nov. 2015 <http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/automated-teller-machines>.
Bonessi, Dominique. “ATM robberies becoming more brazen around the globe.” USAToday 11 Apr. 2015. 8 Dec. 2015 <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/11/worldwide-threats-to-atms/25020505/>.
Curan, Kevin, and Xianwu Huang. “Investigating the Human Computer Interaction Problems with Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Navigation Menus.” International Journal of Interactive Technology and Smart Education (ITSE) 5.1 (2008): 2-4.
Field, Tom. “ATM Security: 3 Key Vulnerabilities.” Bank Info Security 9 Mar. 2011. 8 Dec. 2015 <http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/interviews/atm-security-3-key-vulnerabilities-i-1027/op-1>.
Gaskins, Brad. “ATMs Without Operating Audible Instructions And No Braille Instructions Provided.” NATSO 31 July 2015. 30 Nov. 2015 <http://www.natso.com/blog/atms-without-operating-audible-instructions-and-no-braille-instructions-provided>.
Gaskins, Brad. “ATMs Without Operating Audible Instructions And No Braille Instructions Provided.” NATSO 31 July 2015. 30 Nov. 2015 <http://www.natso.com/blog/atms-without-operating-audible-instructions-and-no-braille-instructions-provided>.
Kesselman. Information Security. Web log. 24 Mar. 2013. 8 Dec. 2015 < http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33067/if-an-atm-is-stolen-how-easy-can-the-personal-information-of-the-users-be-recov>.
Latterell, Catherine G., ed. Remix: Reading and Composing Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006.
Peebles, Gustav. “A Wicked Cheat.” Latterell 617-621.
Rikower, Aaron. “Preventing User Errors in Automated Teller Machines.” UX Movement. 11 Oct. 2011. 30 Nov. 2015 <http://uxmovement.com/thinking/preventing-user-errors-in-automated-teller-machines/>.
Sidel, Robin. “Theft of Debit Card Data From ATMs Soars.” The Wall Street Journal 19 May 2015. 8 Dec. 2015 < http://www.wsj.com/articles/theft-of-debit-card-data-from-atms-soars-1432078912 >.
Winner, Langdon. “Technological Somnambulism.” Latterell 594-598.