Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-guardianship at automated teller machines

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Aims and scope

Abstract

Automated teller machines (ATMs) are central to the functioning of developed economies, but by their very nature operate without human supervision, making them vulnerable to criminal abuse. This study sought to understand how customers protect themselves from theft while using ATMs. Observations of and surveys with ATM customers were used to identify how individuals protect themselves from theft of cash, card or personal details while using an ATM. The most common self-guardianship measure was to use only ATMs believed to be safe. The majority of customers did not cover the ATM keypad while entering their personal identification number, despite long-running publicity campaigns encouraging this behaviour. This suggests that self-guardianship is important at ATMs, but many customers fail to take even basic measures to protect themselves, their money and their bank details from theft. Banks and crime-prevention practitioners should do more to facilitate and encourage self-guardianship at ATMs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is also possible to attack the machine directly, or to attack bank staff servicing a machine, but such attacks are outside the scope of the present study.

  2. Ages were subsequently categorised and—for people who were observed and subsequently surveyed—compared with the ages given by participants during the survey. Eighty-three per cent of ages estimated by observers were in the same age category as given by the survey respondents.

References

  • Barthe, E. 2006. Crime prevention publicity campaigns. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bátiz-Lazo, B., and R.J.K. Reid. 2011. The development of cash-dispensing technology in the UK. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 33 (3): 32–45. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2010.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braz, C., A. Seffah, and D. M’Raihi. 2007. Designing a trade-off between usability and security: A metrics based-model. In Human–computer interaction—interact 2007, Part II, vol. 4663, ed. C. Baranauskas, P. Palanque, J. Abascal, and S.D. Junqueira Barbosa, 114–126. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R.V. 1997. Introduction. In Situational crime prevention: Successful case studiesdies, ed. R.V. Clarke, 1–43. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramér, H. 1946. Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, A., M. Langheinrich, and H. Hussmann. 2010. Towards understanding ATM security–a field study of real world ATM use. In Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), ed. L. Cranor. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1837110.1837131.

  • Eck, J.E. 1995. A general model of the geography of illicit retail marketplaces. In Crime and place, ed. J.E. Eck, and D. Weisburd, 67–93. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E., and T.D. Madensen. 2015. Meaningfully and artfully reinterpreting crime for useful science: An essay on the value of building with simple theory. In The Criminal Act: The role and influence of routine activity theory, ed. M.A. Andresen, and G. Farrell, 5–18. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ekblom, P. 2005. Designing products against crime. In Handbook of crime prevention and community safety, ed. N. Tilley, 203–244. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENISA. 2009. ATM crime: Overview of the European situation and golden rules on how to avoid it. Heraklion: European Network and Information Security Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europol. 2012. Payment card fraud in the European Union: Perspective of law enforcement agencies. The Hague: Europol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G., and K. Pease. 2008. Repeat victimisation. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley, and L. Mazerolle, 117–135. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M. 1986. Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In The Reasoning Criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending, ed. D.B. Cornish, and R.V. Clarke, 119-128. Secaucus, NJ: Springer.

  • Felson, M., and R. Boba. 2010. Crime and everyday life, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483349299.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C.A., T.W. Franklin, M.R. Nobles, and G.A. Kercher. 2012. Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior 29 (10): 1296–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giblin, M.J. 2008. Examining personal security and avoidance measures in a 12-city sample. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45 (4): 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerette, R.T., and R.V. Clarke. 2003. Product Life Cycles and Crime: Automated Teller Machines and Robbery. Security Journal 16 (1): 7–18. doi:10.1057/palgrave.sj.8340122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M.E., M. Felson, and B.C. Welsh. 2013. The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 15: 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T., and J. Spencer. 2005. A little yellow box: The targeting of automatic teller machines as a strategy in reducing street robbery. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 7 (2): 15–28. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. 2011. Personal identification number (PIN) management and security—Part 1, vol. 1, ISO Standard No. 9564-1:2011. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

  • Johnson, S.D., K.J. Bowers, L. Gamman, L. Mamerow, and A. Warne. 2010. Theft of customers’ personal property in cafés and bars (No. 60). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  • Kosse, A. 2013. The safety of cash and debit cards: A study on the perception and behaviour of Dutch consumers. International Journal of Central Banking 9 (4): 77–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, G., and P. Turner. 2007. Forensic data recovery and examination of magnetic swipe card cloning devices. Digital Investigation 4: 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.diin.2007.06.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, P. 1984. Target-hardening: How much of an answer? In Coping with burglary: Research perspectives on policy, ed. R.V. Clarke, 29–44. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mott, G., and A. Townsend. 2010. About the ATM industry, 2nd ed. unknown: ATM Security Working Group.

  • Nagelkerke, N.J.D. 1991. A note on the general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78 (3): 691–692. doi:10.2307/2337038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, O. 1972. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D.A. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6 (3): 38–43. doi:10.1145/301153.301168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PCISSC. 2013. Information supplement: ATM security guidelines. Wakefield, MA: Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. Retrieved from https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/PCI_ATM_Security_Guidelines_Info_Supplement.pdf.

  • Pease, K. 2006. No through road: Closing pathways to crime. In Crime reduction and the law, ed. K. Moss, and M. Stephens, 50–66. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D.M. 2009. Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11: 1–10. doi:10.1057/cpcs.2008.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D.M. 2014. Informal guardianship. In Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, ed. G.J.N. Bruinsma, and D. Weisburd, 2480–2489. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reyns, B.W., B. Henson, and B.S. Fisher. 2011. Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 38 (11): 1149–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakharova, I., and L. Khan. 2011. Payment card fraud: Challenges and solutions (No. 34-11). Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas.

  • Sampson, R., J.E. Eck, and J. Dunham. 2009. Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal 23 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1057/sj.2009.17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R.M., and S. Farrall. 2005. Gender, socially desirable responding and the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 45 (2): 212–224. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc for funding and facilitating this research, as well as staff of the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Borough of Camden and the City of Westminster for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Matthew P. J. Ashby

  2. Design Against Crime Research Centre, University of the Arts London, London, UK

    Adam Thorpe

Authors
  1. Matthew P. J. Ashby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Thorpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew P. J. Ashby.

Appendix: Survey questions

Appendix: Survey questions

  1. 1.

    Are you conscious of security when using an ATM?

  2. 2.

    What security issues are you conscious of?

  3. 3.

    How does concern about ATM security influence your behaviour when using an ATM?

  4. 4.

    Have you been a victim of ATM crime?

  5. 5.

    Can you describe to me what happened when you were a victim of ATM crime?

  6. 6.

    Do you:

    1. (a)

      Cover your PIN?

    2. (b)

      Ensure no-one is in your personal space before using the ATM?

    3. (c)

      Request privacy when using the ATM?

  7. 7.

    What is the most important factor to you in deciding to use an ATM?

  8. 8.

    What is the most important factor to you when using an ATM?

  9. 9.

    Have you ever wanted to request privacy while using an ATM?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashby, M.P.J., Thorpe, A. Self-guardianship at automated teller machines. Crime Prev Community Saf 19, 1–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-016-0010-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-016-0010-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation