3 ms·

This is asinine. Asking a bank to do their job is not asking to be nannied. Let's pretend only stupid people get defrauded, do they deserve it? Finders keepers

by cmurf 10y ago

This is asinine. Asking a bank to do their job is not asking to be nannied. Let's pretend only stupid people get defrauded, do they deserve it? Finders keepers losers weepers? This is a juvenile world view. Tricking people is not a service, is not a job, does not absolve a bank of their primary responsibility, which is safeguarding money.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Asking a bank to do their job is not asking to be nannied The only way this transaction could have been prevented is if the bank told the customer "you want to do X with your money but we aren't going to let you because we find it ill-advised". Not everybody wants that level of oversight and restriction. You see blocking fraud as a bank's main job. There are times, however, when one can reasonably find facilitating transactions to be their main role. When I'm travelling, a constantly-declining debit card is more of a nuisance than the risk of having a thousand dollars pilfered from my checking account. There's no way to do both risk management and transactional freedom perfectly, since the former means restricting the latter, even to the point of telling a customer what they can and cannot do with their money. > a [bank's]...primary responsibility...is safeguarding money As with everything, there are trade-offs. Absurdly put, a bank which refused to allow anyone to withdraw or transact could score splendidly in terms of "safeguarding money". They'd also be useless, because that's not a bank's only job.
nxzero 10y ago
At some point there's only so much you're able to do. Once had someone ask me how to send their bank account information to someone. I asked why, and they proceed to show me an email from a scammer. I told them it was a scam, and their response was that I was trying to keep them from making money. First thought was okay, I'll prove it's a scammer; scammer and the person had already exchanged a number of emails, which I exploited to get more information from the scammer. Using bit of social engineering and data leaked from the scammer, I was able to discover the scammer's exact location. When I confronted the scammer, they demanded to know how I knew where they were, then stopped responding. The person that originally asked me how to send bank account info - having watched everything I had done with an explanation added - blamed me for chasing away a valid opportunity. Week later, scammer contacted them again, and they sent cash requested by the scammer via mail. Should the bank have asked them what they intented to do with cash withdrawal? Should the bank make sure they're not lying? Is the bank responsible? If yes, I disagree. (Scammer was on a street in Lagos, Nigeria.)

by cmurf 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> Asking a bank to do their job is not asking to be nannied The only way this transaction could have been prevented is if the bank told the customer "you want to do X with your money but we aren't going to let you because we find it ill-advised". Not everybody wants that level of oversight and restriction. You see blocking fraud as a bank's main job. There are times, however, when one can reasonably find facilitating transactions to be their main role. When I'm travelling, a constantly-declining debit card is more of a nuisance than the risk of having a thousand dollars pilfered from my checking account. There's no way to do both risk management and transactional freedom perfectly, since the former means restricting the latter, even to the point of telling a customer what they can and cannot do with their money. > a [bank's]...primary responsibility...is safeguarding money As with everything, there are trade-offs. Absurdly put, a bank which refused to allow anyone to withdraw or transact could score splendidly in terms of "safeguarding money". They'd also be useless, because that's not a bank's only job.

nxzero 10y ago

At some point there's only so much you're able to do. Once had someone ask me how to send their bank account information to someone. I asked why, and they proceed to show me an email from a scammer. I told them it was a scam, and their response was that I was trying to keep them from making money. First thought was okay, I'll prove it's a scammer; scammer and the person had already exchanged a number of emails, which I exploited to get more information from the scammer. Using bit of social engineering and data leaked from the scammer, I was able to discover the scammer's exact location. When I confronted the scammer, they demanded to know how I knew where they were, then stopped responding. The person that originally asked me how to send bank account info - having watched everything I had done with an explanation added - blamed me for chasing away a valid opportunity. Week later, scammer contacted them again, and they sent cash requested by the scammer via mail. Should the bank have asked them what they intented to do with cash withdrawal? Should the bank make sure they're not lying? Is the bank responsible? If yes, I disagree. (Scammer was on a street in Lagos, Nigeria.)