I certainly can’t claim to suffer from the early adopter syndrome, however, for the online banking experiment I was probably among the earliest adopters. Everything felt right: no more “may I please leave earlier today, I need to pop into the bank”, no queues, no closed doors and late payments – everything at a “touch of a button”, quick, effective, whenever you need it, and in the comfort of your own home. Besides, what did I have to lose – as a customer, I’m covered, no matter what happens?

I’m still covered and had almost forgotten the last time I actually visited my local branch when I suddenly found myself “having to pop into the bank” again and again. Services I was so used to were no longer available: I had to urgently transfer some money to a friend – turned out it was no longer possible for the new payees; my end of the month regular transfer of 1010 pounds didn’t go through due to a newly imposed limit of 1000, and one day I simply couldn’t login and was asked to call and answer some “security” questions … such as “what was the exact amount of your last transfer in April and how many direct debits do you have on your account?” How am I expected to remember?

Of course, with increasing online banking adoption, security is becoming a serious concern and rightly so; and it certainly IS as important to make the user feel secure as it is to actually secure their funds. And it's not just the funds that are in danger there - it's also the important private data that could be misused and exploited if exposed. However, is prevention through restriction rather than through technology really the answer? Does it make the user "feel secure and protected", or just annoyed and inconvenienced? Does it conveys the feeling of “being taken care of” or just the inability to offer adequate protection of the users' money as well as their valuable personal information?