Talk:ATM SafetyPIN software

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up the page. But there is a huge lack of information on this page. I'll try to review the material and rewrite the page, but this will take some time ~ 1 month. So please do not consider deleting this page until after September 30, 2007. Existance is a struggle between life and death. I just like to watch. --Zeruski 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy - History section[edit]

The following is stated in the second paragraph:

Contrary to assertions by Forbes, IBM holds no patent for an ATM emergency PIN system. US Patent 6679422 is for a secondary cash box to be loaded with marked bills in the event that an emergency PIN is used.

However, the Forbes article mentions U.S. patent number 6,693,545, also assigned to IBM. It would be helpful if someone were able to verify whether this patent actually covers (or does not cover) the "ATM emergency PIN system", or similar, as referenced in this article. If it does, then this paragraph would have to be rephrased or removed entirely.--Mfolozi 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Forbes article does not mention the US Patent 6,693,545. The patent referred to in the Forbes article says that the IBM patent cites Zingher's patent. Yet, an examination of the patents cited in 6,693,545 shows no reference to Zingher's patent. Further, the date of the Forbes article is January 4th, 2004. Patent 6,693,545 was issued February 17th, 2004. The Forbes article states that the IBM patent was issued on January 20th. Anyone with doubts should look at the article and review closely. http://www.forbes.com/services/2004/01/28/cz_tk_0128pin.html ----

While you are correct in that patent number 6,693,545 is not mentioned in the magazine article, and it clearly cannot be the one the Forbes writer is referring to; patent 6,679,422 does state the following:

If the user enters the duress PIN, the system determines that it is a duress PIN and actuates a silent alarm to notify authorities of the possible crime. The system will then simulate a normal transaction, perhaps with a reduced maximum withdrawal amount, so as to not alert a thief or potential thief that the alarm has been actuated, while dispensing bills marked with special ink that is visible only when viewed under special light. (Source: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, pat. 6,679,422)

Therefore, in the context of the above paragraph (see text in bold), one must admit there is a relation with an "ATM emergency PIN system". This is also noted in the patent claim itself. I would say there is a fine difference between what is claimed in 5,731,575 and what is claimed in 6,693,545, and for this reason, the paragraph should be edited to reflect this. If it does become too specific and open to discussion, then for the sake of conciseness, and to avoid splitting legal hairs, we should consider whether the paragraph about the Forbes article should even be included in this article or removed altogether. Let me know your opinion on this. (Note: I am not an IP expert, but neither is the average person reading the article.) --Mfolozi 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but, both of these patents were issued AFTER the SafetyPIN patent. Although the patent makes certain claims, you'd have to "pull the jacket" to find out what is actually allowed. They're useless. Failure to disclose 5731575 is grounds for revoking the second patent, IBM's emergency PIN patent. The fact it 'relates' is a meaningless statement. Forbes is well aware of the false nature of their report. It seems that what's really going on here is an attempt to discourage investors. Your own assertions seem to be part of that. You had to go out of your way to come up with this argument to rehabilitate Forbes' article. Everybody's got an agenda in life. Mine is obvious. What's yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.84.21 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hidden agendas. Much ado about nothing? Not really: The reason why I have taken the time for reviewing this particular article is because I find this to be a rather ingenious invention. I was curious to know why such a system wasn't already in place, and after some research, I came across the patent and this article. Regardless of the outcome, I wish the inventor success at finding the right economic incentives for implementing this great idea.

However, it is important for an article to reflect a neutral point of view. As this does not seem to be the case with the paragraph in question, I am removing it until these assertions are better explained in the article, or backed by a reliable source. Alternatively, if the inventor agrees, we could add some variation of the following:

According to Zingher, IBM holds no patent for an ATM emergency PIN system, but rather for a secondary cash box to be loaded with marked bills in the event that an emergency PIN is used.

Regards.--Mfolozi 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you ought to contact me directly through the website. http://atmsafetypin.com You keep changing your explanations and a direct conversation would be more fruitful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.84.21 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the U.S.? Why not other countries?[edit]

I wonder, has Joe Zingher ever considered selling this software in other countries where the crime rate is high enough to make this system an interesting and viable solution? Where I live, quick kidnappings are common, and something like this could be a seller. It's unfortunate that it isn't offered over here.--Disreport 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I'd be happy to. Want to be my registered agent in your country? Contact me through my website.----[reply]

Feel free to send me any promotional material or any disclosable/disclosed supporting documents you already have, describing your system and its competitive advantage. My address is link.latam (at) gmail (dot) com (replace with "@" and "." respectively).--Disreport 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Duress code[edit]

The concept of a duress code goes back a long time. As far as I can tell, what's novel about the invention described here is the use of the PIN number in reverse as the duress code. That doesn't seem to be enough of an difference to warrant a separate article. At the moment the article consists mostly of unsourced complaints about the fact the invention has not been widely adopted. I don't think most of that that belongs on Wikipedia.--agr 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that some (cough, cough) probably prefer to use Wikipedia as a place to publish their personal views, and that this article has some of that, I believe there is still relevant, encyclopedic information, that is too specific to be placed inside the duress code article. For example, the article includes the legal and political history of the invention, as well as some impact on the media.

Still, I agree that at this stage, an individual article is probably not justified either.

Proposal:

Create article "ATM customer security", or similar.
Merge this article into an own section of the new article.
Add another section regarding the (currently unmentioned) SafeAlert system.
Add a link to this article, at the already existing section Customer security of article Automated teller machine and in article Duress code.
Create referral from "ATM SafetyPIN software" to the homonymous section of the newly created article.

Just my two cents. Please let me know what you think. Regards. --Mfolozi 08:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough reliably sourced material for the article you propose? The present SafetyPIN article complains that no one is collecting data, which strongly suggests there isn't much basis for claims that forced withdrawals from ATMs is a significant problem. The notable, sourced info in this article, would fit well into a sub head under Duress code. Safe Alert and Safety Pin proposals could be mentioned under the ATM article Customer security section.--agr 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that this article's information is too specific to make the article Duress code emcompass this one, but don't know which one of the alternatives is better, whether it be to make this a section of the already long ATM article, include it in a new ATM customer security article, keep it as is, or something else. In any case, if you have enough time, be bold, proceed with this article as you consider appropriate for Wikipedia.

P.S.: I don't know if we can somehow deduct that forced cash withdrawals are not a significant problem. Regards. --Mfolozi 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to remove unsourced material and duplications. I think what's left would fit nicely in the duress code article. I have no way of knowing how much of a problem forced withdrawals are, but we need a reliable source that says they are a problem before we make much of the issue here.--agr 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the Google News website for the key words "ATM murder" yields examples of the problem occuring all over the country. As you read it bear in mind that this only covers 30 days of news reports and that Google does not cover 100% of all news sources in the country. However, assuming arguendo that there are absolutely no more incidents other than the ones you find online, compare whatever you find with the fatality rate associated with the Ford Firestone Recall. (203 over a four year period, or 51 per year.) Bear this in mind as you read the stories. They only cover cases where the victim's murder was confirmed and an arrest was made. They do not cover cases where the victim simply disappeared and was found later. Nationwide, only about 60% of confirmed murder cases are cleared by an arrest. (Source, Uniform Crime Reports, Dept of Justice, 2005) It does not include cases where the reporter used the term "homicide" "executed" "shot to death" "killed" etc or used "automatic teller" "cash machine" "bank machine" or a colloquialism such as ""Mac Machine" which is common in the Northeast.

The industry has been under significant criticism for ignoring the problem. See ATMMarketplace.com "Consultants call for increased ATM security measures" December 04, 2000. Normally, to reseach a crime statistic, one uses the felony code section as an index number. There being no index number the statistician would have to read through the narrative section of every police report in a given department's records. While that is expensive to say the least, it would still be much cheaper than investigating and prosecuting a single murder case. With that in mind, the shortage of public information about the extent of the problem becomes much more curious and just a heck of a lucky thing for the bank's marketing department.----

Some thoughts[edit]

Reversing the PIN to trigger an alarm doesn't seem like a pretty smart idea to me. I doubt I would be able to properly reverse my PIN with a gun pointed at my head. Also, how about PINs that are palindromes? -- wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC) But inherently, you're admitting that others might be able to. There's a pretty significant lag time between the shock of the initial assault and the first withdrawal. Remember, the victim has to be driven to the ATM. That's a lot of time to gather one's wits. Aside from that, since there are no hard data proffered by the critics, their argument squeezes down to "IF just one person can't use it, let them all die." Does that make sense? In politics, that's known as "making the perfect, the enemy of the good."[reply]

Palindromic pins are handled by the "inside-outPIN" 2442 becomes 4224. 1771 becomes 7117, etc 71.239.84.21 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PIN Example[edit]

What if the PIN was 1221 for example? this will always call the police! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.144.98 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) See above. A PIN like 1221 or 0990 or whatever, is turned "inside-out" instead of being reversed. Thus, 1221 becomes 2112. Note please, it still requires the user to hit all four digits in precisely the wrong order to accidentaly trigger a false alam, which is a crucial issue for the police. JPZingher (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FEDERAL REPORT[edit]

Pursuant to Section 508 of the Credit Card Act of 2009, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627 the Federal Trade Commission was directed to do a study of violent ATM crimes and possible countermeasures, including the use of panic buttons and emergency PIN systems including the ATM SafetyPIN and other variations as well. Here is the report, http://ftc.gov/os/2010/05/100504creditcardreport.pdf Per the report, there are no data available to use in making a recommendation. The report then goes on to provide a summary of the available news articles, something not asked for in Section 508. This claim by the FTC needs to be clarified because it seems misleading. Data about the problem is now easily available from the Los Angeles Police Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Chicago Police Department, the New York City Police Department. Why they consider these sources of information inadequate is not explained in the report. JPZingher (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section in the article at all, except for promotional purposes of JPZingher's pattent! Also calculation done in the paragraph is completelly confusing and useless - not to mention I doubt its accuracy.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on ATM SafetyPIN software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]