Recently, multiple media outlets have reported on the incident of "too many early morning takeout orders and risk control on bank cards", which has once again drawn attention to the balance between the rights and interests of bank customers and risk control security. Many netizens have shared similar experiences in posts related to "bank risk control", where behaviors such as ordering takeout late at night and frequent shopping have triggered bank risk control, resulting in restricted use of bank cards. It is understood that if an account has frequent small transactions, fast in and out, or suspicious counterparty accounts, similar to the pattern of telecom fraud, it may be detected and judged as abnormal by the system. The risk control measures originally implemented to prevent telecommunications fraud and protect fund security have been disrupted in the daily lives of ordinary consumers due to the "one size fits all" approach of some banks, which prefer to avoid fraud rather than neglect. Indeed, the original intention of banks tightening risk control is good. Under the high-pressure situation of anti telecom fraud and anti money laundering, the accountability mechanism of "whoever opens an account is responsible" has made grassroots branches set "zero fraud accounts" as a hard target. And behaviors such as fast in and fast out, early morning trading, etc. have become the focus of system monitoring due to their similarity with fraudulent fund transfer patterns. But the rationality of the original intention cannot conceal the problem of extensive implementation. Especially for some banks, their risk control models are not perfect enough, lacking accurate analysis of consumption scenarios and user habits, and mistaking normal behaviors such as food delivery consumption and family and friend transfers as abnormal, resulting in the suspension of non counter banking services for users. This' one size fits all 'risk control model clearly has more disadvantages than advantages. For consumers, unblocking accounts requires running to the counter and submitting various certificates, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive; Some users suffer additional losses due to account restrictions causing overdue repayments and disruptions in emergency consumption. For banks, frequent "accidental injuries" can erode user trust and over time may affect their reputation and market competitiveness. More importantly, excessively strict indiscriminate control may create resistance among the public towards anti fraud risk control, which is actually detrimental to the progress of related work. The core of risk control is "risk prevention", not "blocking transactions". To achieve a balance between security and convenience, regulatory authorities should strengthen guidance, clarify risk control boundaries, and avoid banks falling into the trap of "extreme prevention and control" due to accountability pressure; Banks need to put more effort into technological optimization and mechanism improvement. On the one hand, the risk control model should be upgraded by introducing multidimensional data such as consumption scenarios and user behavior profiles to accurately distinguish between normal consumption and suspicious transactions, avoiding the simple determination of anomalies based solely on transaction time and frequency; On the other hand, it is necessary to refine control measures. For suspected abnormal accounts, gradient restrictions can be implemented instead of directly suspending all non counter business. At the same time, the unblocking process should be simplified, and convenient methods such as online verification and remote auditing should be implemented to reduce the cost of running errands for users. In addition, the public should also understand the risk control responsibilities of banks, actively cooperate with reasonable due diligence, and form a mutually beneficial interaction. Banks bear the responsibility of combating fraud, but they cannot remain vigilant. While accurately identifying risks and building a secure defense line, ensuring the smooth operation of legitimate transactions and uninterrupted public life is not only a test of the bank's risk control level and management wisdom, but also a measure of its commitment to the original intention of "finance for the people". (New Society)