4 ms·
The cost of the false positives are much higher than the false negatives. Temporarily slowing down down 99 scammers is not worth stranding one normal person in
by chinchilla2020 3y ago
The cost of the false positives are much higher than the false negatives.
Temporarily slowing down down 99 scammers is not worth stranding one normal person in a foreign country with no means to access their money and no means to recover their account.
The reality is that most lockdown-type protection schemes are just a roadbump, not a solution. They slow down the attacker. In fact, hackers are employing account lockouts to lock security teams and management out of their own accounts when they launch an attack.
I'm with OP on this one. The banks have completely failed to protect against fraud while causing massive economic damage with their clueless security design.
- mike_d 3y ago> Temporarily slowing down down 99 scammers is not worth stranding one normal person in a foreign country with no means to access their money and no means to recover their account. To that one person it obviously isn't worth it. To the company it absolutely is.
- blowski 3y agoSo many transactions are flagged as false positives (way more than 1%), while there are a lot of false negatives because the tools don't improve as quickly as the scammers. The case for blocking transactions is getting weaker - we should instead strengthen the post-fraud response mechanisms, and then analyse the additional data we gain.