No one can accuse Australian police chiefs of not thinking ahead. So far ahead, indeed, that one might be forgiven for thinking that the worst drought in recent history is causing more than a shortage of milk down-under.    

According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, recently told a federal parliamentary inquiry investigating organized crime issues, that ‘technology such as cloned part-robot humans used by organized crime gangs pose the greatest future challenge to police’. He went on to express concern, undoubtedly extremely well founded, that Australian police lack resources and skills to counter this futuristic threat.

I feel secure predicting that the RCMP would feel similar trepidation faced with robots intent on cyber-Armageddon.  
 
But before we rush to conclude that Mr Keelty has bats in the belfry, we should recall the judgment of the 9-11 Commission to the effect that a failure of imagination, an unwillingness ‘to expect the unexpected’ contributed to the success of the fatal attacks on US soil. So maybe Australian law enforcement should be commended for trying to think out of the box.

However, me-thinks that we have far more mundane challenges in the here and now, and that consequently, we should put the threat from robotic bad guys and chimeras down our list of priorities, tantalizing as it may be to make the leap. We badly need to learn to walk before we can run, or fly, or dance the light fantastic.  
Indeed, when it comes to novel approaches to endemic problems, there is a font of esoteric thinking in circulation right now down-under. But it is not all benign.

In fact, if you are planning a once in a lifetime trip to New Zealand to see Frodo’s extravagantly beautiful homeland, and/or to bungie jump your way to permanently bloodshot eyes, take plenty of cash with you.

A new Code of Practice for the financial services sector has come into force in New Zealand, extending to the online banking environment. What makes it interesting is that regulators, policy makers, and consumer advocates inexplicably signed off on a provision that authorizes banks to inspect customers home computers before they reimburse them, in the event they suffer financial loss, for instance, if they fall victim to a phishing scam.

The purpose of the inspection is, ostensibly, to ascertain whether the customer in question had ‘reasonable’ security measures in place.

But what constitutes reasonableness in this arena, when even jaded experts take the bait, as attacks become infinitely more sophisticated? Some commentators have expressed the view that consumers down-under have a choice: they can choose to ‘do their bit’ on the security front, and/or face increased banking fees as cyber-crime increases, or they can ‘choose’ to drive 300 miles in the outback to see a teller at a branch.

With choices like that , who needs ultimatums? And what about employers? How might this impact them? How would they feel about financial institutions inspecting home computers  replete with corporate data, downloaded by sadly remiss remote workers? Who would you trust to do that inspection? Surely such draconian measures simply open yet another door for all manner of unintended consequences.

Not to mention the fact, oft expressed by me over the years in this newspaper, that technology is still way too complex at this juncture to render security measures plug and play. For many consumers faced with unending and frequently inexplicable choices, setting up a secure computer environment at home is just way too much work. So they plug and pray, and then walk away.

The technology conundrum is compounded by wily scam artists migrating to the web in droves, seeking a quick and easy buck. It is a mess, with no solution in sight any day soon. And in my judgment, consumers should not be made responsible for the technology industry’s inability to sort the mess out.

When the cyborgs finally come calling, we better hope that we are further ahead than we are now. Or we are surely done like dinner.