3 ms·

> But Wells Fargo said the transaction wasn’t fraudulent because Mr. Faunce had authorized it — even though he had been tricked into transferring the money. Th

> But Wells Fargo said the transaction wasn’t fraudulent because Mr. Faunce had authorized it — even though he had been tricked into transferring the money. This seems like the difference between me writing a check to a con man and a thief forging a check. If I’m tricked into writing a check, then it’s not bank fraud, it’s grift or theft. So I see the banks point as it’s not their responsibility to make people whole after being robbed. I assume they are cooperating with police, FBI, etc. That being said, Zelle is scary how it seems more fraud and scammy than paypal and Venmo. And I didn’t think that was possible. It’s like the banks didn’t test this for fraud and scams and they don’t seem to care enough to adjust the UX to reduce this risk. The aspect described in the article where anyone can register any number without confirmation from the bank seems surreally stupid and the bank should be at fault for allowing a stranger to register a phone number that’s not theirs. It seems straightforward for a bank to only allow phone numbers on the bank account to be linked to a Zelle account.

mindslight 5y ago
> This seems like the difference between me writing a check to a con man and a thief forging a check. If I’m tricked into writing a check, then it’s not bank fraud, it’s grift or theft. Yes, but this is inapplicable for the second case listed in the article, where someone's phone was stolen and used to make unauthorized transactions. Those transfers are truly unauthorized and should be reversed under regulation E, regardless of the bank's use of snake oil "2FA". This unjust deflection is one of the problems with creating new login hoops in general - banks will do everything they can to claim their new system means every transaction is definitively authorized, until slapped down by regulators and the courts.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tsol 5y ago
>That being said, Zelle is scary how it seems more fraud and scammy than paypal and Venmo. And I didn’t think that was possible. It’s like the banks didn’t test this for fraud and scams and they don’t seem to care enough to adjust the UX to reduce this risk. How so? I like the easy of Zelle, but much like cash it's true you can hand money over to just about anyone. To me, though, it's a 'freedom comes at a price' sort of thing. I'm not sure how they could go about making Zelle less 'scammy' tbh
- prepend 5y ago
  In that you can register a phone number without any confirmation. So the security of Steam is stronger than signing up to receive money on Zelle. Same for Venmo and PayPal. I can’t add a phone number or email to PayPal without confirming it. It seems odd to receive funds without verifying my contact info. Also, seems like there should be some age issues for the amount. The fact that I can open an accounts, scam $500, and shut it down very quickly is bad. My bank doesn’t let me deposit checks over a certain amount before checking my credit and having an account for a while. Seems Zelle should be as hard as a normal checking account.

mindslight 5y ago

> This seems like the difference between me writing a check to a con man and a thief forging a check. If I’m tricked into writing a check, then it’s not bank fraud, it’s grift or theft. Yes, but this is inapplicable for the second case listed in the article, where someone's phone was stolen and used to make unauthorized transactions. Those transfers are truly unauthorized and should be reversed under regulation E, regardless of the bank's use of snake oil "2FA". This unjust deflection is one of the problems with creating new login hoops in general - banks will do everything they can to claim their new system means every transaction is definitively authorized, until slapped down by regulators and the courts.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tsol 5y ago

>That being said, Zelle is scary how it seems more fraud and scammy than paypal and Venmo. And I didn’t think that was possible. It’s like the banks didn’t test this for fraud and scams and they don’t seem to care enough to adjust the UX to reduce this risk. How so? I like the easy of Zelle, but much like cash it's true you can hand money over to just about anyone. To me, though, it's a 'freedom comes at a price' sort of thing. I'm not sure how they could go about making Zelle less 'scammy' tbh

prepend 5y ago
In that you can register a phone number without any confirmation. So the security of Steam is stronger than signing up to receive money on Zelle. Same for Venmo and PayPal. I can’t add a phone number or email to PayPal without confirming it. It seems odd to receive funds without verifying my contact info. Also, seems like there should be some age issues for the amount. The fact that I can open an accounts, scam $500, and shut it down very quickly is bad. My bank doesn’t let me deposit checks over a certain amount before checking my credit and having an account for a while. Seems Zelle should be as hard as a normal checking account.