I blast my friend who works at a regional bank chain about new failures by banks to protect their customers from scams. He reminds me that frequently, if a bank gets between a customer and moving their money as they wish, they can quickly get as angry at the bank as they will the scammer.
My righteousness somewhat dulled by this conundrum, I usually slump in my chair and wonder again how to protect the elderly and simple in a global connected world.
Maybe solving a coordination problem here between banks? A SAR-like mechanism but a “friendly” one for fraud victims that require all banks to coordinate on and slow this customer down from playing into the scam? Some kind of 3rd party prepared to reach out not unlike a fraud report and gently try to get the victim to see the scam that’s wound around them?
Of course that’s now just one more way we’re owned, needing permission to debank or move? Ugh. I worry because every elderly family member I have, I think, has talked to me about suspicious calls and scams, some progressing quite far before a friendly observer intervened.
You mentioned restrictions around sending money, but not restrictions on receiving money. If you put obligations on the banks receiving payments to refund scam victims, those banks will have incentive to stop people using their services to conduct scams. Basically, unusual payments get stopped or delayed until the bank can confirm their own customer isn’t running a scam, identities haven’t been stolen to open accounts, etc.
Banks already have too many restrictions on what you can do with your own money. At some point you’ve got to accept it’s a user problem. Instead of creating more restrictions, educate people. Run ads where young and old people alike will see them.
Really interesting article, unfortunately it seems quite lucrative to scam seniors, and very hard to prevent, especially when they don’t think they’re being scammed.
Hmm. (1) An article from WSJ. From their reputation, not good. (2) Article about Pig Butchering? Obscure, undefined terminology, really bad writing. That's too much -- refuse to read or pay attention.
I blast my friend who works at a regional bank chain about new failures by banks to protect their customers from scams. He reminds me that frequently, if a bank gets between a customer and moving their money as they wish, they can quickly get as angry at the bank as they will the scammer.
My righteousness somewhat dulled by this conundrum, I usually slump in my chair and wonder again how to protect the elderly and simple in a global connected world.
Maybe solving a coordination problem here between banks? A SAR-like mechanism but a “friendly” one for fraud victims that require all banks to coordinate on and slow this customer down from playing into the scam? Some kind of 3rd party prepared to reach out not unlike a fraud report and gently try to get the victim to see the scam that’s wound around them?
Of course that’s now just one more way we’re owned, needing permission to debank or move? Ugh. I worry because every elderly family member I have, I think, has talked to me about suspicious calls and scams, some progressing quite far before a friendly observer intervened.
You mentioned restrictions around sending money, but not restrictions on receiving money. If you put obligations on the banks receiving payments to refund scam victims, those banks will have incentive to stop people using their services to conduct scams. Basically, unusual payments get stopped or delayed until the bank can confirm their own customer isn’t running a scam, identities haven’t been stolen to open accounts, etc.
Banks already have too many restrictions on what you can do with your own money. At some point you’ve got to accept it’s a user problem. Instead of creating more restrictions, educate people. Run ads where young and old people alike will see them.
Really interesting article, unfortunately it seems quite lucrative to scam seniors, and very hard to prevent, especially when they don’t think they’re being scammed.
https://archive.ph/xfCNm
Hmm. (1) An article from WSJ. From their reputation, not good. (2) Article about Pig Butchering? Obscure, undefined terminology, really bad writing. That's too much -- refuse to read or pay attention.
(2) should be split into (2) and (3), surely? Furthermore, the neologism in question has been part of the vernacular for quite a while.