Needs to be some protection for consumers who scammed through sophisticated means or are vulnerable. But people also need to take responsibility for things themselves. Scams are well documented and some are obvious.
You cant also expect banks to basically write a blank cheque to compensate. This captures 99% of victims so seems a good medium
17Beta18Carbons on
30 years ago if someone walked into a bank pretending to be someone else and walked out with a bunch of money, it was called theft and it was the bank’s problem. Today if someone does that its called identity theft and its your problem.
Nothing has actually changed, banks just used the excuse of computerisation to shift the goal posts and we just kinda let them. Online payments make fraud easier? Tough, Improve the online security processes then. Keeping your money safe so only you control it is _definitionally_ the bank’s job. What are they for if they can’t do even that?
Marcuse0 on
I’m confused by Which’s position here.
Apparently lowering the repayment threshold to £85000 from a proposed £415000 will still hit 99% of victims so I’m unsure how that’s supposed to be a big problem. Making these refunds mandatory, and making the bank the fraudster uses responsible for 50% of the refund (meaning banks will be incentivised not to blindly transfer funds to people they suspect of committing fraud) will protect more people. This is especially the case in the APP frauds where currently banks won’t refund you anything if you “authorised” the payment even if you did so under false pretenses.
Shazalamadingdong on
Phones seem fairly easy to scam, clone, steal. Phone companies need to take some responsibility for this also. 2FA on sensitve accounts, especially email accounts, is a good idea!
Walked into the front room at my dad’s about 6 years ago, he was on the phone getting stressed. He starts shouting at me that I’ve been watching pornography on his internet. The guy at the other end claimed to be from Microsoft… We all know the scam (and for the record, I never used his internet lol). If I hadn’t been there, he’d have lost thousands. Even the Daily Mail (his choice of reading) had an article on it but he was suffering from the early stages of dementia.
If it’s deemed the bank is at fault for something, though, then there should be no limit to the compensation. We put a lot of trust in these institutions and they’re not as secure as they make out to be.
Blue_View_1217 on
This is probably a good thing, but it’s going to get even more annoying when the banks start flagging more and more transactions as potential fraud and freezing them until you phone them up.
I made a fairly large payment for a car recently and I was on the phone for over half an hour with the bank before they would let it go through. They wanted to know every detail about the car and the main dealer I was buying it from.
InMyLiverpoolHome on
Good, a long time ago I worked in the fraud department of a bank and it was heartbreaking seeing people scammed out of money and the bank refusing their claims, often old people or people with very little knowledge of computing and phones.
Some banks had fraud refund guarantees already, but it wasn’t the case with all of them.
For people ready to ride and die for the banks, they make an immense amount of money, they’ll be fine.
Bamboo_Steamer on
Heaven forbid the banks have to give back the money that has technically been stolen from them due to their lack of processes and security.
secretusername555 on
Digital is supposed to be better. Maybe one way is to stop making links clickable. Across the whole entire web and links should not be a billion characters. Security needs to be stepped up by 100% so it isn’t possible for someone to be vulnerable in the first place.
bluecheese2040 on
We need a balance here. Some people are scammed time and again by obvious scams. They shouldn’t get refunded. But others should
Flat_Fee_3425 on
[UAE are running the sex, drugs trade, with the use of funding courtesy of the UK, among others through the use of companies, with areas as distribution, services, property, law, areas related to this, with the ability to move this forwards in the right way being ignored numerous times in relation to the overall situation. With others as a choice to be as a part of this due to what has been communicated, with areas related to funding.]()
10 Comments
Needs to be some protection for consumers who scammed through sophisticated means or are vulnerable. But people also need to take responsibility for things themselves. Scams are well documented and some are obvious.
You cant also expect banks to basically write a blank cheque to compensate. This captures 99% of victims so seems a good medium
30 years ago if someone walked into a bank pretending to be someone else and walked out with a bunch of money, it was called theft and it was the bank’s problem. Today if someone does that its called identity theft and its your problem.
Nothing has actually changed, banks just used the excuse of computerisation to shift the goal posts and we just kinda let them. Online payments make fraud easier? Tough, Improve the online security processes then. Keeping your money safe so only you control it is _definitionally_ the bank’s job. What are they for if they can’t do even that?
I’m confused by Which’s position here.
Apparently lowering the repayment threshold to £85000 from a proposed £415000 will still hit 99% of victims so I’m unsure how that’s supposed to be a big problem. Making these refunds mandatory, and making the bank the fraudster uses responsible for 50% of the refund (meaning banks will be incentivised not to blindly transfer funds to people they suspect of committing fraud) will protect more people. This is especially the case in the APP frauds where currently banks won’t refund you anything if you “authorised” the payment even if you did so under false pretenses.
Phones seem fairly easy to scam, clone, steal. Phone companies need to take some responsibility for this also. 2FA on sensitve accounts, especially email accounts, is a good idea!
Walked into the front room at my dad’s about 6 years ago, he was on the phone getting stressed. He starts shouting at me that I’ve been watching pornography on his internet. The guy at the other end claimed to be from Microsoft… We all know the scam (and for the record, I never used his internet lol). If I hadn’t been there, he’d have lost thousands. Even the Daily Mail (his choice of reading) had an article on it but he was suffering from the early stages of dementia.
If it’s deemed the bank is at fault for something, though, then there should be no limit to the compensation. We put a lot of trust in these institutions and they’re not as secure as they make out to be.
This is probably a good thing, but it’s going to get even more annoying when the banks start flagging more and more transactions as potential fraud and freezing them until you phone them up.
I made a fairly large payment for a car recently and I was on the phone for over half an hour with the bank before they would let it go through. They wanted to know every detail about the car and the main dealer I was buying it from.
Good, a long time ago I worked in the fraud department of a bank and it was heartbreaking seeing people scammed out of money and the bank refusing their claims, often old people or people with very little knowledge of computing and phones.
Some banks had fraud refund guarantees already, but it wasn’t the case with all of them.
For people ready to ride and die for the banks, they make an immense amount of money, they’ll be fine.
Heaven forbid the banks have to give back the money that has technically been stolen from them due to their lack of processes and security.
Digital is supposed to be better. Maybe one way is to stop making links clickable. Across the whole entire web and links should not be a billion characters. Security needs to be stepped up by 100% so it isn’t possible for someone to be vulnerable in the first place.
We need a balance here. Some people are scammed time and again by obvious scams. They shouldn’t get refunded. But others should
[UAE are running the sex, drugs trade, with the use of funding courtesy of the UK, among others through the use of companies, with areas as distribution, services, property, law, areas related to this, with the ability to move this forwards in the right way being ignored numerous times in relation to the overall situation. With others as a choice to be as a part of this due to what has been communicated, with areas related to funding.]()