The December 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

It is getting hard to keep track of the number of IT-related glitches plaguing Australian banks lately.

Late last week, Australian news media reported that many customers of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia were unhappy once again because of yet another glitch with the bank's computer systems. This time, the Daily Telegraph reported, customers found that they could not access their ATM accounts or make Electronic Fund Transfer Point of Sales (EFTPOS) purchases for about 5 hours on Friday afternoon. Phone banking was said to be down as well.

CBA has suffered several IT-related glitches in the past year, including one in March where its ATMs were dispensing "free cash," one in December of last year when it experienced an overnight payments processing glitch, and one last August in which a security upgrade caused a round of "banking chaos."

The three other major Australian banks—Westpac, National Australia Bank and ANZ Bank—have all been hit with IT glitches this last year, some multiple times.

Given that the Australian banking sector is expected to experience IT operational turmoil for the foreseeable future, maybe the Australian government should consider running a betting scheme where Australians can wager on which major bank will suffer a computer problem and on what day. That way the Australian government can generate a bit more revenue for itself, and major bank customers might at least feel they are not suffering IT frustration without at least some possibility of gain for their troubles.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less