Expansive Rationalisation
It sometimes worries me how much people don't stop to consider what's going on when they run across something they think is stupid - or, worse, when they're told something is stupid by someone else, and accept it without thinking. Myself most definately included. I'm going to demonstrate this with something I saw on facebook recently, but it could equally be applied to any of the political issues I've covered in the last couple of months
The post I applied some thinking to was:
The ATM told me "do not remove any suspicious devices". WTF?
For some reason, probably because they didn't spot the phone number to call if there are any suspicious devices, was that they were being encouraged to leave them attached when using the machine.
I, on the other hand, felt it somewhat went without saying that, on discovering a suspicious device, you decide not to use that cash machine. They're not exactly uncommon these days, whereas I've never seen at attached suspicious device1. So that only leaves the question of why the companies want to remove them themselves.
To see this, you need to think in slightly more abstract terms about what the situation is. It's not a case of you needing to get money out from the point of view of the people who design the system. The problem with most systems is that they are designed in a comfy boardroom somewhere, with little flow charts and committees. For this, you need to be partially in that mindset; I generally find that radio 4 and a cup of tea helps this to happen.
We have, therefore, a box that contains a lot of money, stuck into a wall somewhere. Attached to it is a foreign device, designed to take information of some out as the moneybox is being used. The device may contain information that should only be shared between the bank and the particular customer. This leads to the first reason why you are not allowed to remove it yourself - you would be removing confidential information from the companies' control2.
The second point relates to the actual removal. A small part of me thinks that, if I were ever to build such a device, I would design it never to be removed, but rather to write data to a certain (type of) card when that card was inserted. I haven't had time to research card ripping techniques, but my instinct is to treat them almost as IEDs - stick a little something in them, and have them take what money is in the machine with them when they're incorrectly removed3. Furthermore, attempting to remove them yourself could, in general, cause damage to the machine; if you end up breaking the magic moneybox, then people will just be able to take the cash out of the wall. A Hole In The Wall, you might say4.
All I actually did here was to pause and think about things from different angles - not even every angle5, but it's something that not many people seem to do properly. On the other hand, everyone is perfectly capable of rationalising their thoughts and beliefs - all this is is rationalising other people's thoughts and beliefs.
Oh, and possibly drinking some tea.
- 1 ↑ That said, placing multiple devices in an area would seem like a more efficient way of obtaining card information
- 2 ↑ And, if this information was ever so much as viewed, there might be grounds for a legal case - many of the things you're advised to (not) do don't just reduce the grounds for cases against companies, but also for companies' cases against you
- 3 ↑ Dear Police Officers: I have no intention of ever trying these things. Removal of sections of this post, if deemed necessary, can be organised by email. Yours, Benedict Harcourt.
- 4 ↑ Hole in the Wall is a registered trademark of Barclay's. However, I'm not trading, so it's all good...right?
- 5 ↑ I didn't even mention shareholders!