Posted by Nora Shelbi.

In the article, Isaac (2017), discussed the issue of the Uber investor and claimed that Travis got involved in the material misstatement and fraudulent trading.  As per the investors, it has been declared that such fraudulent activity has been done with the intention to get the outside control of the board; and, he is involved in the breach of contract and breach of duty. Also, the investors are claiming that Mr. Kalanick’s “overarching objective is to pack Uber’s board with loyal allies in an effort to insulate his prior conduct from scrutiny and clear the path for his eventual return as C.E.O.”

The author of the article has declared that all the fraudulent activities which have been done by Mr. Kalanick is mainly due to restoring his position as the CEO and for this purpose, he is using the fraudulent ways which are not allowed at all in the corporate environment. The persons who were in favor of him have declared that he does not want to be the chief executive officer of the company, but others have said that he is doing this just to achieve the control without even having the title of the chief executive officer of the company.

There are many other claims, which are made, including an atmosphere of sexual harassment at workplace. The company is also sued by the sister company of Google for stealing the trade secrets of company, Waymo. Such issues concerning litigation against the company as well as its officials are not in favor of the company. It is deteriorating the image of the company, as well as, dissatisfying the investors to a greater extent. (ISAAC, 2017)

Nora is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

ISAAC, M. (2017, Aug 10). Uber Investor Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud. Retrieved Sep 20, 2017, from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/technology/travis-kalanick-uber-lawsuit-benchmark-capital.html

Posted by Steven Otto.

The San Francisco rating company, Yelp, is not found liable for negative reviews posted on its site. This is because it relies on ratings posted by users, not the company itself. A federal appeals court on Monday, September 12, dismissed a libel lawsuit filed against Yelp by Douglas Kimzey, the owner of a Washington state locksmith company. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under federal law, Yelp is not liable for content it gets from its users. The features of Yelp are based on users’ input and it is not content created by the company, whose site helps guide people to anything from restaurants to plumbers and much more.

The court said that Douglas Kimzey’s business received a negative review on Yelp in 2011. Kimzey claimed that the negative review was actually meant for another business, and claimed that Yelp transferred the review to his business on purpose in an attempt to extort him. He claims that Yelp was trying to force him into paying to advertise with Yelp. The appeals court said that his allegations were not substantial and that there were no facts at all supporting Yelp fabricating content under a third party’s identity. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel decision, said “We fail to see how Yelp’s rating system, which is based on rating inputs from third parties and which reduces this information into a single, aggregate metric, is anything other than user-generated data.”

The appeals court previously ruled under the 1996 Communications Decency Act that “websites that provide what are known as ‘neutral tools’ to post material online cannot be held liable for libelous material posted by third parties.” Kimzey’s claim that Yelp should be held liable for distributing reviews to search engines was dismissed by this act. The appeals court stated that distributing the content does not make Yelp the creator or developer of the content.

Aaron Schur, Yelp’s senior director of litigation, said the appeals court “rightly confirmed Yelp’s ability to provide a forum for millions of consumers to share their experiences with local businesses.” Kimzey said he lost 95% of his business after getting one star on Yelp and said, “If you have a one-star rating, people won’t go near it (the business). They don’t care if you’ve been in business for one week or 25 years.” Obviously upset over what had occurred to him and the ruling, Kimzey, serving as his own attorney, plans to appeal to a larger court panel.

Steven is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

For all those who died in the terrorists attacks upon our soil:

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.  And let the perpetual light shine upon them.  May the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.  Amen.

Latine:

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine.  Et lux perpetua luceat eis.  Fidelium animae, per misericordiam Dei, requiescant in pace.  Amen.

Posted by Tiffany Zapata.

Wells Fargo is the most recent bank to get caught in the act of predatory lending. The bank was accused in court filings of targeting minorities, such as black and Latino borrowers, for more costly home loans in comparison to whites. The acts took place in Cook County, Illinois, with a population of about 5 million. The case was filed in Chicago federal court.

The bank’s strategies encompassed home-loan origination, refinancing, and foreclosure. Their main concentration was equity stripping. Equity stripping is asset based lending which maximizes lender profit and makes it nearly impossible for the borrower to pay it off due to onerous loan terms. Before getting caught, the bank got away with 26,000 loans. The court order called for 300 million dollars in money damages.

Tom Goyda, a spokesman for the San Francisco-based Wells Fargo stated: “It’s disappointing they chose to pursue a lawsuit against Wells Fargo rather than collaborate together to help borrowers and home owners in the county,’’ Goyda said. “We stand behind our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

Wells Fargo is also currently involved in a lawsuit with the federal government due to its mortgage lending. This is not the first time courts have seen these sorts of acts from banks. Miami and Los Angeles filed similar suits alleging banks were “red-lining” minorities to block loans and for not informing investors on the status of the mortgages that were sold.

Wells Fargo ended up wining the lawsuit brought by the City of Miami in July. The City claimed Wells Fargo sold predatory mortgages in neighborhoods immersed with minorities before the “housing bubble burst.” The judge decided the City was not qualified to file these claims under the Fair Housing Act. The decision is being appealed.

Tiffany is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State Univsersity, Class of 2016.

Posted by Kimberly Culcay.

In the article, “What the PCAOB’s new related-party standard means for auditors,” Maria L. Murphy captures the new standard put in place by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The new standard will require auditors to perform specific procedures that are intended to strengthen auditor performance in high-risk areas, such as significant unusual transactions and financial relationships, and transactions with executive officers. The reason behind the new standard is that in the areas of accounting mentioned above there was a lack of guidance on how to report or treat certain transactions.

The Auditing Standard (AS) No. 18 requires auditors to understand the relationships and transactions with related party transactions as if they were someone working in the company. The auditors must also understand and document the process of understanding the relationships and transactions of the company just as the internal controls of the company itself. The auditors not only have to record how they gained understanding of the relationships and transactions but the auditors must properly account for the transactions, perform procedures to test that the company’s related parties and transactions with those parties have been completely and accurately identified, accounted for, and disclosed. Before this standard, there was a vague and unstructured way of handling related party transactions. Related party transactions are a way that a company can commit fraud by transferring property to a related party thereby creating a conflict of interest. In the article, it also states that the AU Section 316, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, was amended to require specific procedures to identify and evaluate significant unusual transactions. The main point of amending the standards is for the professional auditors to be able to identify procedures quickly if a situation of fraud exists.

I think amending the standards of accounting to include specific procedures to prevent fraud from happening rather than a professional figuring out what to do if fraud is already done is way more useful. I also think that with the incentive to have these procedures in place, it eliminates some of the gray area of accounting. The need for Forensic Accountants has increased ever since the recession in 2008, with all of the fraud that was done due to the lack of strict standards and procedures to be able to detect fraud early. I am currently a graduate student at Montclair State University; I have been striving to complete my combined program in Accounting BS/MS with a Certificate in Forensic Accounting. Personally, I find that in the emerging economy people have learned from the mistakes made in the past with the scandals, fraud and so on. I think it is important to be a Forensic Accountant in order to apply sophisticated set skills in other aspects of accounting and litigation. I think that if you already know how to be an accountant and with some background knowledge on Forensics, then it could be easier to detect some of the common problems that lead to fraud.

Kimberly is an accounting major with a certification in forensic accounting at Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:  Murphy, Maria L. “What the PCAOB’s New Related-party Standard Means for Auditors.” Journal of Accountancy. 22 July 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2015. .

Posted by Patrick Osadebe. 

On September 17, 2014, a federal judge sentenced Timothy Cromer, a former Detroit public library official, to 10 years in prison for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. He was charged for accepting more than $1.4 million in bribes from contractors of the library.

Timothy Cromer, 46, was the chief administrative and technology officer for the Detroit library from 2006 to 2103. Cromer helped James Henley set up a company called “Core Consulting and Professional Services.” Cromer then made it possible for the company to win the bid to provide information technology in the library.

Cromer also collected kickbacks from another individual who was charged in the indictment. All of these crimes took place between 2008 and 2011. Hearn and Henley both plead guilty to the charges and are currently awaiting sentencing on October 28, 2014.

Patrick is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the summer of 2015, one of the world’s most known Japanese companies broke headlines as a top accounting scandal. Investigators found the company was overstating operating profits by at least 151.8 billion yen ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars) between the years of 2008 and 2014. Their accounting problems primarily began from company employees understating costs on long-term projects, according to an investigation by a former top prosecutor in Japan.

The investigation also cited issues with improperly valued inventory also as the cause for the enormous overstatement of operating profits. Details of the scandal emerged when an independent investigative panel released a report describing, “Toshiba CEOs put intense pressure on subordinates to meet sales targets after the 2008 global recession.” The investigative report revealed that the CEOs did not directly instruct anyone to cook the books but rather placed immense pressure on subordinates and waited for the corporate culture to turn out the results they wanted. The investigative panel also pointed out that the weak corporate governance and a poorly functioning system of internal controls at every level of the Toshiba conglomerate didn’t mitigate or stop the inappropriate behaviors. Internal controls in the finance division, the corporate auditing division, the risk management division, and in the securities disclosure committee were not functioning properly. The accounting misconduct began under CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in 2008 due to the global financial crisis that immensely lowered Toshiba’s profitability. It continued unabated under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Tanaka. Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka announced his resignation, in light of the scandal.

It has been four months since the scandal broke headlines and much new information has come to light. Since then, Toshiba has amended and restated those losses as to being more than $1.9 billion. As a consequence of the scandal, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has already designated Toshiba’s shares as “securities on alert” and fined the company $760,000 for “undermining the confidence of shareholders and investors.” In addition, Toshiba also faces the possibility of lawsuits from angry shareholders in Japan who have seen the company’s share price tumble.

Such action is already being taken in the United States, where an investor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toshiba in June. The Rosen Law Firm representing the plaintiff has called for other Toshiba shareholders to join the suit. Despite the consequences Toshiba is facing, the one burning question has yet to be solved. Who did this? How did all this came about? How could their fraud be maintained for so long, and who should take direct responsibility?

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Timothy O’Shea.

Tesla Motors, an automotive company in the Automotive Energy Storage industry, “who’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”(tesla.com) It “was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers in Silicon Valley who wanted to prove that electric cars could be better than gasoline-powered cars”(tesla.com). As of now, all Tesla Cars will be made with complete self-driving software. It is their belief that these self-driven vehicles will help to improve safety while also aiding in the transition to the world’s sustainability. However, Tesla’s autonomy options have had some challenges and have caused Tesla some trouble. Tesla has now faced a number of lawsuit’s regarding false advertising and marketing, more specifically false advertising and marketing of the car’s “Insane Mode”, a performance mode intended for fast acceleration, and also for the car’s autonomous mode.

After a few crashes, one of which was fatal, Tesla Motors has been receiving criticism for the way in which it chose to market and deploy its Autopilot driving-assist system. In the summer of 2016, Tesla was admittedly being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for its first reported fatality in a self-driving vehicle, while a second potential crash, involving the Autopilot feature, arose. Multiple cases have erected in China after Tesla crashes, with one resulting in fatality, a 23 year old driver whose “dashboard camera showed the car hitting a cleaning truck from behind while traveling on a highway in central Hebei province.”(forbes.com) Another fatal crash took place in Florida, where Joshua Brown, 40 year old supporter of Tesla, was hit by a tractor trailer which was undetected by neither driver nor autopilot. A final crash that raise concern against Tesla’s Autopilot software occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on July 1, where Albert Scaglione reportedly activated the self-driving feature prior to hitting the guard rail “off the right side of the roadway… crossed over the eastbound lanes and hit the concrete median.”

Amongst the many crashes and accusations, Tesla has continued to stand behind it’s autopilot saying that the crashes resulted from human error, rather than system error, and in most cases the opposing parties have not been able to prove otherwise. On a bold posting on its website, the company said “there is no car company in the world that cares more about safety than Tesla and our track record reflects that.”(usatoday.com) This statement resulted from the NHTSA’s disclosure it was further investigating the electric car company for the possibility of having their customers sign non-disclosure agreements that would impede reporting. With repeated complaints, the NHTSA continues to investigate the validity of Tesla motors vehicle safety but has not found any major problems at this time. From suspension concerns, to accusations of false advertising, to crashes and claims against the Autopilot feature, Tesla remains under consistent fire and has been on its toes ready to adapt and turn its feedback into more environmentally, economically, and logistically friendly features.

In more current news, Tesla has been running into some speed bumps in its growth and develop in Germany. The Federal Motor Transport Authority of Germany, has recently sent a request to Tesla asking them to stop advertising the “electric vehicles’ Autopilot function, claiming that this feature misleads drivers into unsafe inattention to the road.”(eetimes.com) Yhe claim released in late September, implies that Motor companies must refrain from using misleading terms like “auto-pilot”, “automated”, or “self-driving” if their cars do not possess the ability to control themselves completely independent of human involvement.” (eetimes.com) Tesla has responded saying its “Autopilot always requires that the driver remain engaged and ready to take over at any time.” (electrek.com)

Timothy O’Shea is an undecided business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

Tesla issues thorough response following harsh critique of Autopilot by German authorities

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330633

https://www.tesla.com/about

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougyoung/2016/09/19/tesla-takes-new-china-hit-with-driver-death-lawsuit/#37346299284f

Posted by Ali Paladino.

Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law.  The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.

The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”

I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.

Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.

Ali is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Kirill Ivanov.

Tesla, a popular tech firm, is commonly known for its production of electronically-powered cars and batteries. Tesla Motors is among many ventures pioneered by Elon Musk, who has commanded the SpaceX programs as well as many other development projects. Tesla vehicles are not as popular as those produced by Honda or Toyota; while one may occasionally spot a Tesla model out on the road, sightings are few and far between. In order to expand their sales and drive more Tesla vehicles out onto the roads, Tesla Motors initiated a referral program. This referral program, which was based on rewarding customers for purchasing the company’s products, boasted many incentives for potential Tesla buyers as well as current owners.

According to Tesla Motors, anyone who ordered a brand new Tesla Model S before October 31st using a referral link from a current Tesla owner would get $1,000 off the listed purchase price. In return, the current owner providing the referral would receive a $1,000 voucher for a Tesla service center visit or a Tesla accessory. The offer went on to offer a $25,000 discount for a new Tesla Founder Series Model X, which is not available to the public, when a person provides ten referrals. Why was this program illegal? Tesla Motors simply created a way to thank its customers for building the Tesla community while simultaneously reeling in new customers to expand the existing community.

Unfortunately, Tesla’s referral program happened to violate a California State Law, which is quite ironic due to the fact that the company’s headquarters are located in Palo Alto, California. The company’s referral program violated the California Automobile Sales Finance Act, which states the following:

It is unlawful for any seller to induce or attempt to induce any person to enter into a contract subject to this chapter by offering a rebate, discount, commission, or other consideration, contingent upon the happening of a future event, on the condition that the buyer either sells, or gives information or assistance for the purpose leading to a sale by the seller of, the same or related goods.

As a result of its failure to comply with California State Laws, the Tesla Motors referral program did not attract the customers the company had hoped it would. Many businesses use referral programs to benefit loyal customers while simultaneously attracting new ones, but it is extremely important for such business to be aware of local laws. Ignorance on a company’s part can result in catastrophic legal damages, but lucky enough for Tesla the company only received a written warning from the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Kirill is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Source: 

Title: DMV warns Tesla it’s referral program is unlawful

Author: Mark Glover

Published: October 15, 2015

Link: ( http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article39309483.html )

Posted by Stanley Bukowski.

On August 6, 1991 was when the internet, also known as the “World Wide Web”, became available to the public. At that time, cyber-attacks ever occurring, never crossed anyone’s mind. Since the launch of the World Wide Web, cyber-attacks and IT threats continue to significantly grow each year. Even though they are known to be threats to business/organizations/firms/universities, they are most importantly a threat to individuals themselves. Even though business/organizations/firms/universities may lose financial resources from cyber- attacks, individuals lose their sense of total personal privacy. Personal Privacy is a concept that is cherished and treasured for four main reasons (Brey). The first reason is that privacy must be well-adjusted to national security and public order. Secondly, it is known to be a condition that is necessary for autonomy, which allows individuals to develop their own personality through personal experiences. Thirdly, privacy is known to be a safeguard to us which shields them from external threats of exclusion and/or blackmail. Lastly, it can also provide social value as well.

In the field of computer security, one will see that it is the process of being able to counteract and detect illegal usage of a computer. Computer security deals with having the ability to act as a safeguard by fighting off cybercriminals/identity thieves that are trying to get a hold of our personal resources that we have stored on our computers. Basically, the main goal for computer security professionals is to provide the protection that is needed for the valuable information and resources that are stored on our computers. The two types of computer security systems that exist are: System Security, which protects the software and hardware of a computer from mischievous programs and Information Security, which protects three different types of data such as availability, confidentiality, and integrity (Brey).

On June 11, 2017 the University of Virginia was silently blind-sided with a cyber-attack from China, where several attackers that operated together to successfully wire transfer $996,000 to what was first an unknown, untraceable location. This attack was successful due to the fact that there was a breach of information that leaked out information that the University of Virginia was upgrading their security system and also due to the fact that the thieves stole a computer from the university that belonged to the comptroller (U.VA). Once the thieves had a hold of this information and the computer, they implanted a virus into the university’s entire IT system, which allowed them to gain access to the University’s accounts at BB&T Bank. When the virus ultimately completed the job that it was created for, they were able to steal the universities online banking credentials, commencing them to successfully complete a single wire transfer to the Agricultural Bank of China.

To most people, this would set off a red flag, especially since it was a wire transfer from a United States university to a random, unheard of bank located in China. Not only should that have been a red flag, but a red flag should also have gone off seeing that the University of Virginia had no prior records in their transfer history to wire transfer money to the bank in China. Regardless of the fact that most universities in America purchase their school supplies from across seas, they tend to always use reputable banks, where they have several prior transactions in their transfer history. Even though there is a good chance that the university may retain most of its lost, they will not receive the entire amount that was stolen.

Believe it or not, most thieves today are known to be what we call “cyber hackers.” Thieves that commit these types of crimes are the individuals, co-workers, friends, family members that you would least likely expect to commit such a crime. Before we continue any further, the next four descriptions that are listed below, are the characteristics that management of business/organizations/firms/universities should look for when trying to identify a thief (Singleton).:

1. Reputable CharacterStudies show that you will never find a thief that disrupts the regular flow that happens daily at the working environment that they are a part of. These types of thieves will have the type of reputation at work where nothing ever seems to bother them. They will never portray or converse towards others or with others dishonest behavior and will never discuss their own personal financial issues. By doing so, management will never be suspicious that they would or ever think of stealing from the company.
2. Collaborate with AdministrationYou will find thieves to always be individuals that continually help their co-workers out with projects. The only plot twist is–they will only help them to the point where they will not be exposed to information that management could possibly use against them. Thieves use reverse psychology and have a relaxed personality when dealing with auditors. They tend to put on a poker face and give auditors everything they need in order for the auditors to be able to complete their jobs. Thieves believe in the fact that if they behave like they have nothing to hide, auditors/management will never become suspicious of them.
3. Work-a-holicsTaking a vacation from work will lead thieves down a one-way road, known as jail. If a thief were to take a vacation and the IRS/Auditor just happened to start an investigation while they were gone, will red flag them as the first source of why financial resources are missing. By not taking a vacation while the IRS/Auditor are conducting their investigation, there is a slimmer chance of the IRS/Auditor blaming them.
4. Norm: SecrecyThieves know that to successfully commit corporate fraud, they need to follow the norm of secrecy. Thieves know not tell anyone within or outside the company about the future corporate fraud they are about to commit. The percentages of successfully completing corporate fraud diminish the more individuals that the thief would inform. No matter if it is their best friend, wife, brother, etc., thieves know that to successfully complete the operation, they must act as an assassin, working silently alone.

I believe that business/organizations/firms/universities that implement Biometrics Security Systems will not completely bring cyber-attacks to an end, but it will certainly decrease them to the bare minimum because it is a form of access control. Biometric Security Systems are known to be as a technique of entry in which users/individuals are recognized based on their physical individualities, personal/behavioral/biological features. Having a wide variety of alternatives to choose from, business/organizations/firms/universities have a large selection pool that they may elect from to incorporate a the type of biometrics of their choice. For example, fingerprint, retinal, & palm scanners and face recognition are just a few of the types of biometrics available. Fingerprints are now being used as access controls for smartphones because in order to unlock their phone with their fingerprint, the fingerprint must be equivalent to the fingerprint that was previously stored on the smartphones system. This prevents thieves from getting their hands on private information that is on the device. The same exact notion can be applied to the corporate world. (Lombard0).

Information of the advancement of Biometrics is spreading amongst many individuals today and is becoming more of a topic of discussion due to its popularity due to it replacing passwords with login credentials. The most recent examples of biometrics security systems is now used when individuals take the GMATS. Before entering to take the standardized test, the proctor uses a palm vein reader upon entry to ensure that the exam is not being taken by a random individual and that it is being taken by individual who signed up for the standardized test.

Years ago it would cost a business/organizations/firms/universities tens of thousands of dollars to implement such a finger print scanner into their building but today it only costs about $200 dollars to have a finger print scanner implemented into a desktop, $2,200 for a retinal scanner to be implemented at limited access doors, and $250 for a palm scanner for each room for an employee to enter their office. For example, if the company has 5,000 employees:

A. 5,000 employees * $200 finger print scanner laptop = $1,000,000 B. 5,000 employees *$250 palm scanner entrance to office room = $1,250,000 C. 5 retinal scanners * $2,200 enter limited access door  = $11,000 D. 10,005 Installment fee for Scanners *$300 (avg of all three) = $3,001,500

E. Yearly Maintenance of all three Biometric Units = $25,000