This web site,The Australian Banking Association , indicates what banks are and intend to do about financial scamming. Read about it, by clicking that link.

However, although some of these initiatives could be welcomed, like the identification of the person or organisation that you are transferring money to, others, without an opt in option are not.

Like the delaying or stoping of the transfer of funds.

I asked Google's artificial intelligence engine, Bard, to read the banking material and write a rebuttal. See Scam-Safe Accord: A Rebuttal,that appears below.

The prime purpose of banks is to maximize ther profits for shareholders. They do this by lending money that depositors have deposited with them. Therefore it is in their interest to keep as as much deposited funds as possible in the bank for the longest period of time. Some of these new practices, enhanse that.

Regardless of what might be betrayed in the media, the vast majority of people are not scammed and are aware of what scammers do and possibly could do.

Therefore these changed practices are being done for the minority of people.

Because all banks are introducing these changes, other than using cash, it is impossible to not be potentially affected by them. And because banks are non-government organisations, you can't vote against them.

The Scam-Safe Accord, an initiative by major Australian banks, outlines measures to enhance security and prevent financial scams. While these measures aim to protect consumers, they raise concerns regarding the potential infringement of individual rights and privacy. This rebuttal critically examines the proposed measures and emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that safeguards both security and individual liberties.

The widespread adoption of biometric checks for opening online accounts poses significant privacy risks. Biometric data, such as fingerprints or facial scans, is highly sensitive and irreplaceable once compromised. Centralized storage of such sensitive information makes it a prime target for data breaches, with potentially devastating consequences for individuals.

The increased use of warnings, delays, and questioning for unusual transactions could hinder individuals' financial freedom and autonomy. While mitigating financial scams is essential, restrictive measures should not unduly limit individuals' control over their own finances. Moreover, individuals should be fully informed about the rationale and implications of these measures and provided with clear options to decline or opt out.

The implementation of these measures should be carefully tailored to balance security with individual rights. A risk-based approach could focus on higher-risk transactions or individuals with a history of being scammed, rather than imposing blanket restrictions on all customers.

While the Scam-Safe Accord is primarily initiated by banks, the involvement of NGOs could help ensure that individual rights and privacy are adequately considered. NGOs can provide expertise in privacy protection, data ethics, and human rights to inform the development and implementation of these measures.

Clear and transparent guidelines should be established regarding the collection, storage, and use of biometric data, as well as the criteria for triggering warnings, delays, and questioning. Mechanisms for accountability should be put in place to ensure that these measures are implemented in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

The Scam-Safe Accord addresses a pressing issue, but it is crucial to carefully balance security with individual rights and privacy. NGOs can play a valuable role in safeguarding these rights while collaborating with financial institutions to combat financial scams. A multi-faceted approach that prioritizes informed consent, targeted measures, transparency, and accountability is essential to strike the right balance.