Tony, not having worked in a bank you're not really in a position to comment on the effectiveness of the procedures.
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true. Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.
Flashing your used-to-work-at-a-bank credentials doesn't mean anything unless you can refute my assertions that (a) many hats can be used to obscure the face, and (b) obscuring the face makes it harder to identify criminals on surveillance cameras. The fact that taking off one's hat is a very minor inconvenience is hardly the core of my argument, but it is certainly true.
The idea that I'm not "in a position to comment" is just your attempt to shut down debate when you don't have a legitimate logical argument. If you don't have any actual facts to bring to the table other than your employment history, I'll be exiting the conversation now.
Previous Topic
Index
