I think the real reason is Asimov’s ‘Three Laws of Robotics’
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
… also, a robot risks leaving an audit trail of what it did, so risks making its owner more accountable.
The article quickly hits the term “open banking” and spirals downhill from there into a turgid broth of quasi-buzzwords and marketing dribble. One wonders whether the royal commission has fried the brains of these ‘finance industry leaders’, or whether it has just thrust them into the sunlight so we can see them for what they are? Perhaps I’m being too cynical …
Cynicism is not required to judge them. The proof of what is reality has been made evident by the many disclosures of the Commission’s investigations and questioning. Sadly the Big 4 Banks and many of their subsidiaries and others in the finance sector are not responding to the clients who use their products but are responding to the many large investors and shareholders who require a different outcome than the “savers” and “borrowers”.
Any actions they take such as apologies I feel are based on securing the best Share price possible in the circumstances (noting that prices have slipped with the revelations and fines) before the consideration of the people they have affected.
I read an amusing article a week or so ago which I now cannot locate.
It was regarding the outcomes of the Banking RC in which the ACCC gave APRA and ASIC a spray, effectively stating that they were toothless tigers who were asleep at the wheel.
When the ACCC tells you that, you can be assured it is coming from a source with great experience in the field.
More stupidity and incompetence from the grubby banks.
Amazing that the possible wait of up to 45 days for this mistake to be rectified changed to just a few hours after A Current Affair became involved.
And how generous of the bank to offer to reimburse the interest charges which were due to their incompetence.
It reminds me of an incident decades ago when some moron at Optus debited our Diners Club Card for $22,000 instead of $22, but as Diners Club Cards have no limit, this matter was solely due to Optus’ incompetence.
I am surprised the RBC did not take a closer look at the (inadequate) role the CIO and FOS both played in this banking debacle. Both of whom report to ASIC.
I have dealt with both CIO and FOS. They both proved to be useless especially the CIO which took over 1000 days to investigate my case defending the actions of my Mortgage Broker for the entirety of the complaint.
More to the point, if CIO and FOS, now combined as the new AFCA do not report serious misconduct to ASIC, ASIC will continue to remain limited in what actions they take.
