Penny Crosman

The long-running tension between anti-money-laundering rules and data privacy concerns is especially pronounced in the awkward relationship between regulated financial institutions and digital currency businesses.

Services are cropping up that help banks analyze bitcoin transactions for signs of criminal behavior such as money laundering. But such services come with their own risks.

Banks give a lot of reasons for providing chip cards that work with signatures, rather than four-digit PIN codes, but none of them are convincing.

The goal of adopting chip cards — to provide tighter security — is a noble one. But by going partway, authorizing transactions with signatures rather than four-digit codes, banks are watering down that security, at least for lost and stolen cards.

Forward-thinking companies could get a reputation lift from being first out of the gate with interesting apps. Banks could also be first to help protect customers from the inevitable privacy leaks that the IoT will make possible.

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which has advanced far on Capitol Hill, promises to help businesses and government thwart cybercriminal attacks. But privacy advocates say the bill would make misuse of consumer data even easier.

In a few instances, banks have temporarily blocked data aggregators from screen scraping customers' bank account information. Are the banks exercising appropriate judgment or obstructing potential competitors?

The glacial pace at which card providers and merchants are adding EMV chips to their cards and payments systems benefits no one, and opens new possibilities for card fraud.

The glacial pace at which card providers and merchants are adding EMV chips to their cards and payments systems benefits no one, and opens new possibilities for card fraud.