I think we are in agreement regarding the general state of mind in banks. However, there simply *have* to be some smart bank people who actually understand the value of exploring and *contributing* (without obstructing) to a common infrastructure instead of creating unique, proven-hard-to-sell, one-usage schemes like FINREAD.
To not obstruct standardization processes is a new item on the agenda for banks who have a bad reputation among standards organizations and standards developers, but why not? They have nothing to lose but a lot to gain in terms of cost reductions and service enablement. Existing proprietary bank developments have only occasionally been successful[*]. Isn't that what standards are all about? Anders *] NACHA's Project ACTION must be a prime example of how wrong things can go if you try to establish a new infrastructure based on secret technology. You simple get NOWHERE. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Guthery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Anders Rundgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internet-payments" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 14:52 Subject: RE: Trusted Computing Group & Banks Don't know about governments but banks brought you FINREAD: a $150 smart card reader that you must purchase but not control that lets the bank control the way you spend your money while charging you a fee for the service. Pesonal security equipment from their point of view is something that they can sell and yet control that reduces their risk and at the same time generates revenue. Anders, why do I want them in the Trusted Computing Group? Cheers, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:10 AM To: internet-payments Subject: Trusted Computing Group & Banks Hi All, https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/members/ It is interesting to note that there are no representatives from governments or banks in spite of that this forum may be the most influential power ever in the area of personal security equipment and PKI. I believe this is very wrong. For _all_ parties. regards Anders Rundgren
