3 ms·

> The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other t

> The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other then assumptions? If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary. Why so little faith in authorities? > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives. > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...) As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.

maratc 4y ago
> Why so little faith in authorities? I have dealt with the authorities on the account of fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.
mindslight 4y ago
I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help. You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer: > They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment. So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? > more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this. > and easy to set up on your phone A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion? Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.
- adriancr 4y ago
  > So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment. What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds. If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance. Objective facts/investigation. Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw) > Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank... I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token) You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions. You will get support. Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Mentioning "privilege" is not a personal attack (I do hate that trend). I'm pointing out that just because you yourself went to the police and they believed and helped you, this is not universal. You keep insisting things like "You will get support", which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid. I'm glad things worked out for you. I'm glad your country seems to have societal integrity where you can count on the system working. Just please stop extrapolating as if its a universal experience.
    - adriancr 4y ago
      I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word gaslighting. Me telling someone that I think they are wrong is not gaslighting. Otherwise, by your logic, I can accuse you right now of gaslighting. Feel free to check out wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting > which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid. I mean... this is quite a stretch... objectively if you get mugged you do go to the police, there's nothing else that can help you. Saying you should have some faith is not gaslighting as you're so keen on saying. Same as you saying that people should have no faith in police is also not gaslighting. Thread has gone one pretty long and honestly there's no point to stretch it further, best of luck.

maratc 4y ago

> Why so little faith in authorities? I have dealt with the authorities on the account of fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.

mindslight 4y ago

I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help. You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer: > They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment. So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? > more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this. > and easy to set up on your phone A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion? Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.

adriancr 4y ago
> So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome? Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment. What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds. If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance. Objective facts/investigation. Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw) > Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank... I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token) You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions. You will get support. Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Mentioning "privilege" is not a personal attack (I do hate that trend). I'm pointing out that just because you yourself went to the police and they believed and helped you, this is not universal. You keep insisting things like "You will get support", which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid. I'm glad things worked out for you. I'm glad your country seems to have societal integrity where you can count on the system working. Just please stop extrapolating as if its a universal experience.
  - adriancr 4y ago
    I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word gaslighting. Me telling someone that I think they are wrong is not gaslighting. Otherwise, by your logic, I can accuse you right now of gaslighting. Feel free to check out wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting > which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid. I mean... this is quite a stretch... objectively if you get mugged you do go to the police, there's nothing else that can help you. Saying you should have some faith is not gaslighting as you're so keen on saying. Same as you saying that people should have no faith in police is also not gaslighting. Thread has gone one pretty long and honestly there's no point to stretch it further, best of luck.