14 ms·

Aside from the reference to sharing a PIN, I missed "How banks are refusing to shoulder responsibility for fraud". What am I missing? More importantly, the cu

• oneloop 10y ago
  Obviously she was tricked. What are you trying to imply, that when someone is tricked it's not fraud? The vast majority of fraud is people getting tricked.
  • nxzero 10y ago
    I'm not implying anything, though I very clearly stated the customer, not the bank is the party responsible for allowing the fraud to take place. Are you implying that being a victim of fraud automatically results in the damages being covered by someone other than the victim? If so, you're wrong; yes, some types of transaction do, but not this type of transaction.
    • FireBeyond 10y ago
      What if the bank is the enabler, making it possible to gain access to someone's account only by publicly available social information? In the end, here, she made the transfer - after the fraudsters were able to do multiple things that emulated the behavior of the bank - sending activation codes to her that were genuine, because they were able to get that from the bank.
      • nxzero 10y ago
        >> "What if the bank is the enabler, making it possible to gain access to someone's account only by publicly available social information?" Using that logic, why would the scammer even need to call the victim? >> "after the fraudsters were able to do multiple things that emulated the behavior of the bank - sending activation codes to her that were genuine, because they were able to get that from the bank." According to the victim, who's story does not add up and appears to have been coached by the expert hired by the paper. Feel free to look into it, but I'm not about to go auditing bank security measures without written permission.
        • caf 10y ago
          "According to the victim, who's story does not add up and appears to have been coached by the expert hired by the paper." This appears to be a completely baseless accusation.
          • nxzero 10y ago
            >> "The exact sequence of events that led to her losses is complex, so Telegraph Money enlisted the help of fraud expert James Freedman to piece together with Ms Jefferys what is likely to have happened." This is not how an investigation is done, regardless of if you're law enforcement or not. Further, none of the statements from the victim support the speculation provide by the expert, nor does the experts speculative commentary appear to be based on investigation in how the bank process works, what information the bank provided, what information the bank has on record to recover an account, how the account was deactivated without information from the customer, etc. ----- More importantly, this conflicting statement from the expert: >> Mr Freedman added, “With these frauds, there always comes a point when the victim 'buys’ the story. From that point, evidence to the contrary is ignored or explained away. [...] In cases such as this, it is not the bank’s system that has been hacked, it is the victim.”
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    If the bank teller is tricked or their bank servers hacked, the bank should be liable. If the account holder is tricked, the account holder should be liable. If a merchant is tricked, the merchant's agreement with their payment processor determines whom is at fault.
    • geofft 10y ago
      That's one possible view. Another one is that, as a matter of contract, I am letting the bank profit from the growth of my money in exchange for protecting me from fraud, no matter who was defrauded. Essentially it's insurance. If someone else crashes into me, and it's their fault, their insurance pays. That's why they're insured.
      • sigzero 10y ago
        Except that contract doesn't exists. You are liable in the situation outlined.
      • x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
        If that's indeed the contract, but it appears this article is decrying the fact that it's not part of the contract to protect you from your misuse of private information. I don't think it's reasonable to assume such a burden of responsibility if not explicitly agreed upon.
        • eyelidlessness 10y ago
          On the other hand, it's basically impossible to negotiate fair terms with a bank because it's almost impossible to survive without a bank account, doing so carries extraordinary costs, and bank customers have basically zero leverage. You can argue that the bank's unilateral terms don't support a moral claim, but it doesn't invalidate the morality of the claim, only the legality.
      • Spooky23 10y ago
        That exists today, it's called a credit card.
• themartorana 10y ago
  Thinly reported, but banks are finding ways to make you responsible for fraud, putting it in fine print, and then refusing to be a party to stopping that fraud. One example given is if you admit you had written your banking pin down somewhere, the bank can say "well there you go, it's your fault" and stop helping you there. Another is that some bank fraud departments have worse hours than banks themselves. In a fun little phrase "Friday afternoon fraud" you'll find the explanation that much bank transfer fraud happens on Friday afternoons after fraud departments have gone home for the weekend, giving criminals ample time to retrieve ill-gotten gains before the fraud department comes in Monday morning. Not a great article, but it ends by calling on banks to be more responsible - so, it's also funny.
  • kiba 10y ago
    The pin is just four numbers. Not secure except against the most casual of thieves. That's not even considering that passwords suck anyway.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • lostlogin 10y ago
      Passwords are specially bad when you are forced to have a certain number of digits and a specified format of letters (case insensitive!) and numbers. ASB.
    • blastrat 10y ago
      um, pretty secure even against dedicated thieves. a four digit PIN is pretty secure when you have centralized authentication (the one bank) and get very very few tries before account lock-out, which is how Debit cards work. If you had 3000 stolen debit cards, you'd have a shot at guessing a few of them while locking out 2990+ other ones, and I'm kinda thinking the bank might notice you doing that. have you heard that thieves are guessing PINs someplace in the world? I haven't, and the world is full of dedicated thieves. and even then, do you know how long that would take versus what you get when you guess one? $500? you might actually make more money panhandling or flipping burgers; of course you've got to trade that off against free meals and healthcare in prison :)
• geofft 10y ago
  This isn't about "fault," this is about contracts. One of the reasons I have a contract with a bank, and that I pay the overhead of having the money sit in a savings account instead of growing at market rate, is that they will protect my money from fraud. If the bank is looking into finding ways not to protect me, I'll look into ways not to keep my money with the bank but instead invest it at market rate. That's all.
  • nxzero 10y ago
    Banks are protecting your money by not agreeing to pay for fraud they are not responsible for.
  • sigzero 10y ago
    They aren't going to cover something that is your fault. Sorry. That is just wishful thinking.
  • twblalock 10y ago
    You do not have a contract with your bank that stipulates these things.