From the Times of India:

Private banks in the western coastal state [Gujarat] have approached the Gujarat Forensics Science University to prepare a facial micro-expressions manual, to train its employees in recognising doubtful high net-worth customers like fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya demanding loans.

This is straight out of the American TV series Lie to Me (IMDB Link):

In the show, Dr. Cal Lightman (Tim Roth) and his colleagues in The Lightman Group accept assignments from third parties (commonly local and federal law enforcement), and assist in investigations, reaching the truth through applied psychology: interpreting microexpressions, through the Facial Action Coding System, and body language.

Have the Indian bankers in question seriously been watching too much TV reruns? In the show, the protagonists use micro expressions to evaluate suspects and their testimony to solve crimes. That’s slightly different from the real world case of deciding whether to give out large loans, no? (For context, India has had a slew of recent large loan frauds.)

I am completely bewildered by this. If there have been some large loan frauds, shouldn’t the most important step be a complete overhaul and re-evaluation of how credit-worthiness of prospective clients is determined? In a financial sense? In a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis sense? In an available collateral sense? Especially given that investigations have been called for on bank employees, it has been alleged that a bank CEO “failed to initiate steps” to prevent the fraud after there were red-flags, and bank officials have been charged?

Do the bankers really believe that there is nothing to improve on their financial evaluations side and in their employee honesty side? Or is this a case of putting their head in the sand and going ‘la-la-la’? Are the bankers too entrenched in their current practices and workflows, don’t want to go through the trouble — and the expense — of actually re-evaluating their own businesses, and are looking for guises to exculpate themselves?

I mean, seriously, if the banks want to go for next generation methods, artificial intelligence and machine learning would be an actual avenue to explore. Examples to be found here and here. There are even courses and available computer code(here and here) to get people started!

Come now, bankers in question: get real and find real solutions to your real problems, and stop with the hand waving TV-show inspirations.

∞

Last Fall, Apple included a fingerprint sensor in its latest iPhone, and called the technology ‘TouchID’. A few days ago, Samsung did the same, including its own fingerprint sensing technology in its latest Galaxy S5 phone.

The blogosphere has been aflutter about one small difference between the two launches: when Apple launched their technology, there was a huge uproar about the implications of using fingerprints as an authentication tool. As everyone has been pointing out, even a US Senator, Al Franken, issued a public email (PDF) addressed to Apple asking for clarifications and explanations regarding the technology and its implications. In contrast, Samsung’s new technology has received no such attention.

Here are my two cents on the reasons:

First, Samsung’s technology has followed Apple’s by almost half a year. In this time, users have had the chance to use the technology first hand, and have realized that the world has not, in fact, turned on its head. Thus, a similar technology from Samsung, even though its implementation is way more far reaching, has not brought any new questions or paranoia.

Second, and more importantly, Apple is a modern cultural and technological icon. There’s no way around it—anything that Apple does is subject to way more scrutiny than any of its competitors. And this is because—even if subconsciously—we have come to expect greatness, caution and prudence from this company and its products. Hence, for example, the attention to Apple’s Chinese production lines, even though every other technology company uses the same companies, and the attention to Apple’s tax schemes, even though every other company does the same—perfectly legal—thing.

This is how it should be.

Apple has shown itself to be the leader of the pack, the pioneer of modern technology; the company to follow, imitate and plagiarize from. Apple has similarly shown leadership and candor in other matters: when scrutinized about their tax practices, they actually suggested tax reforms; when a bill to solidify employee non-discrimination was on the table, Apple endorsed it, and their CEO Tim Cook personally talked about it. And, oh, even without a law being present, Apple of course already had in-house rules of similar effect, as a matter of principle; it simply would not do for it to be otherwise.

With great power, as they say, comes great responsibility, and this extra scrutiny, the extra attenion and paranoia, is the flip side to their influence and strength—their curse along with their blessing, if you will.

May Apple carry this curse with pride and with distinction, for times to come.