An open letter to Nationwide Building Society

Dear Nationwide Building Society,

Some time ago, I started using your society's online banking service because, in clear distinction from all the non-mutual banks, you offered a clear and unequivocal promise that I would not be liable for any fraudulent online transactions that might be perpetrated through my account.  No ifs, no buts, no burden of proof, just a simple promise. This seems to me to be admirably in keeping with the philosophy of being a mutual organization.

Recently, I was disappointed to read that your promise has changed.  Specifically, that it does not apply if online banking is performed using a Linux system - only Windows and MacOS are allowed, you say (http://bit.ly/cHFyoz).

This seems an odd choice for a mutual society.  Linux is open source software, which is the technology community's equivalent of a mutual organization: members supporting members.  Nationwide makes much of its status as a mutual money services organization, so it seems strange that you insist we must use proprietary, profit-driven software if we are to benefit from the mutual support of your promise.  Linux is free to use, and runs well on less powerful hardware, so should be a logical choice for many people who can't necessarily afford the latest and most powerful computers.  As access to Internet services becomes a necessity rather than a convenience for accessing a range of services, your policy becomes a form of discrimination against those who are less able to afford the more powerful computers, which seems to me to be antithetical to the mutual philosophy.

You will no doubt argue that Linux users are in a minority.  But why is this?  I would say that it is for pretty much the same reasons that mutual organizations are in a minority when it comes to banking services.  The proprietary, for-profit suppliers expend vast marketing budgets to capture as many customers as possible, luring them with vacuous and mostly short-lived promises.  And policies like yours which, repeated across countless organizations, reinforce the false notion that a non-commercial system such as Linux is somehow a second class, less capable alternative.  That Linux is somehow less capable or less secure than the commercial alternatives could not be further from the truth.  In the best traditions of mutuality, it benefits from contributions and review from a vast community, far more than any single commercial organization can muster.

I may be disappointed, but I am not surprised when I see large commercial organizations supporting only proprietary systems. I have seen the marketing machines of large software companies at work, offering all benefits to the direct customer organization, for which the price paid by its customers is that those who choose to use systems from other suppliers are offered a second-class service.  But for a mutual organization to make such a choice suggests to me that the very values that underpin mutualization are being corrupted by commercial interests in the supply chain.

We have seen recently the damage caused by narrow commercial interests in the banking system.  Mutual societies remind us that there are other ways, which are often better and more secure.  I use building society money services for just this reason.  The same is true for computer software: a monoculture is potentially dangerous and unstable.  We have recently heard of cases where a computer virus infecting a corporate network has crippled an organization because it standardizes on a single platform.  If you only support one or two proprietary systems, the damaged caused when one of those systems is compromised is magnified.  What we require is diverse implementation of and support for open Internet and Web standards.

To conclude, I believe that Nationwide, as a mutual organization, should be supporting diversity and mutuality in information systems, and I strongly urge that your customers should be supported, not discouraged, in using open source software systems such a Linux.

Graham Klyne