2 ms·

FBI: Scammers stole more than $3.4B from older Americans last year

miohtama 2y ago
In a democratic, Western society, we assume that any adult should and could take care of their own business. Individual rights vs. Collectivism. However in the case of eldery, this seems not to be the case. Can they responsible manage their own finances? Can they navigate the online world? What society should do to protect its weakest? Who can we blame? - Should banks to be made responsible for scams? (the UK did it recently) - Should social networks to be made responsible? (Zuckerberg shall pay and suffer) - Should we firewall block Nigeria and India from where the most scams originate (English speaking, poor, populations and lax law enforcement) Or - Should Microsoft pay - the security of Microsoft Windows is very poor, making all kind of click .exe scams possible? (My personal favourite, all tech scams can be traced down to Microsoft design flaws - you do not have iPhone or Android tech support scams) Personally I believe banks should double confirm suspicious transactions (HM Treasury gives banks 4 days to freeze and confirm by hand now). However, making someone else to pay for the fraud is just inviting over friendly fraud. 60% of credit card fraud is already friendly fraud: you file a dispute to get money back and say merchant fraud you. If we do this for Authorised Push Payments (APP), or wire transfers, then it is very slippery slope. You can easily double your money if the bank pays - just file a scam claim and launder your money through Indian money mules. Difficult choices.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 2y ago
  None of the examples in the article even hint Microsoft products need to be involved, let alone as the sole source to trace scams down to using. It certainly plays a part but so do the same sorts of things you say don't have any problems. I.e. it's not really a tech focused problem, though tech may be able to help some still. Another question is how much of a problem it really is vs the options. 3.4 billion is a lot but in terms of US retirement savings it's also not really a lot at all. That can sway how much it's worth trading off in a solution.
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  Maybe there is a middle ground. I could see implementing an optional router / firewall / telephony option for elderly that by default blocks inbound requests from anything outside of their country by default and gives them a high friction way to make exceptions so that email scams are less likely to trick them into enabling trust to a scammer. Also blocking outbound to other countries. Perhaps even extend interfaces to make it ultra-obvious where calls are coming from and if it can not be determined, run the caller through an automated screening process that has varying levels of complexity based on a scoring system. This concept already exists to some degree within the banking system. Many banks already have the option to block transactions to optionally foreign countries. E-commerce sites do not like this option but I do not care. For example, I wanted to set up a trial account on a CDN that appeared to be hosted in the US. My card declined the transaction because their billing headquarters was in another country. I was happy with that decision and moved on to other CDN options.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
RecycledEle 2y ago
I've said this before. We need to prosecute scammers, and anyone who lies during a business deal is a scammer. Scammers beyond the range if our law enforcement are not beyond the range of our Air Force. Finally, any communications company who forwards a phone call and can not trace where it came from needs to be liable for the illegal content of the call. This should not apply to asynchronous communication; only to synchronous communication.

In a democratic, Western society, we assume that any adult should and could take care of their own business. Individual rights vs. Collectivism. However in the case of eldery, this seems not to be the case. Can they responsible manage their own finances? Can they navigate the online world? What society should do to protect its weakest? Who can we blame? - Should banks to be made responsible for scams? (the UK did it recently) - Should social networks to be made responsible? (Zuckerberg shall pay and suffer) - Should we firewall block Nigeria and India from where the most scams originate (English speaking, poor, populations and lax law enforcement) Or - Should Microsoft pay - the security of Microsoft Windows is very poor, making all kind of click .exe scams possible? (My personal favourite, all tech scams can be traced down to Microsoft design flaws - you do not have iPhone or Android tech support scams) Personally I believe banks should double confirm suspicious transactions (HM Treasury gives banks 4 days to freeze and confirm by hand now). However, making someone else to pay for the fraud is just inviting over friendly fraud. 60% of credit card fraud is already friendly fraud: you file a dispute to get money back and say merchant fraud you. If we do this for Authorised Push Payments (APP), or wire transfers, then it is very slippery slope. You can easily double your money if the bank pays - just file a scam claim and launder your money through Indian money mules. Difficult choices.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 2y ago
None of the examples in the article even hint Microsoft products need to be involved, let alone as the sole source to trace scams down to using. It certainly plays a part but so do the same sorts of things you say don't have any problems. I.e. it's not really a tech focused problem, though tech may be able to help some still. Another question is how much of a problem it really is vs the options. 3.4 billion is a lot but in terms of US retirement savings it's also not really a lot at all. That can sway how much it's worth trading off in a solution.
LinuxBender 2y ago
Maybe there is a middle ground. I could see implementing an optional router / firewall / telephony option for elderly that by default blocks inbound requests from anything outside of their country by default and gives them a high friction way to make exceptions so that email scams are less likely to trick them into enabling trust to a scammer. Also blocking outbound to other countries. Perhaps even extend interfaces to make it ultra-obvious where calls are coming from and if it can not be determined, run the caller through an automated screening process that has varying levels of complexity based on a scoring system. This concept already exists to some degree within the banking system. Many banks already have the option to block transactions to optionally foreign countries. E-commerce sites do not like this option but I do not care. For example, I wanted to set up a trial account on a CDN that appeared to be hosted in the US. My card declined the transaction because their billing headquarters was in another country. I was happy with that decision and moved on to other CDN options.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

RecycledEle 2y ago

I've said this before. We need to prosecute scammers, and anyone who lies during a business deal is a scammer. Scammers beyond the range if our law enforcement are not beyond the range of our Air Force. Finally, any communications company who forwards a phone call and can not trace where it came from needs to be liable for the illegal content of the call. This should not apply to asynchronous communication; only to synchronous communication.