lol Rip Off Britain

robfosters · 1 May 2017 at 09:52

Just staggered at what Angela Rippon just said. Apparently, it shouldn't be just down to us for not falling for scam bank phone calls, the banks should be doing more as they are complicit in it themselves. The definition of complicit is :

involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.

Firstly that is almost an allegation of wrongdoing against the banks and secondly, are we so helpless as individuals now that we do not believe we should be held responsible for our own stupidity?

I'm amazed these questions got past researchers tbh. It's very bad that a mainstream BBC programme like this can be so poorly conceived and produced. Angela Rippon is always banging on about anything like this being the fault of companies and not the public who fall for it. We all need to do our own bit, not expecting others to do everything for us.

Kenai · 1 May 2017 at 09:59

The language used is perhaps over the top but banks and others arguably have parts to play with their behaviour making it easier.

PayPal for example send out (or at least used to) legitimate emails with login links, flying in the face of trying to teach people not to use links they've been sent but to go directly to websites.

Things like that may need more pressure applied to close out obvious routes for scams to operate but generally I find banks are doing a fairly good job these days.

Duke · 1 May 2017 at 10:59

I've caught a few mins of this programme a few times, its quite cringeworthy the things they come up with and how its never the fault of the person doing it, always the 'evil' companies.

DXP55 · 1 May 2017 at 11:02

robfosters said:
Just staggered at what Angela Rippon just said

Firstly that is almost an allegation of wrongdoing against the banks and secondly, are we so helpless as individuals now that we do not believe we should be held responsible for our own stupidity?

Par for the course in this day and age.

Deus Ex · 1 May 2017 at 11:34

People taking some responsibility for their actions would be a better idea.

Steeps · 1 May 2017 at 11:55

I've had this myself, trying to sort out a banking issue they had to pass it up the chain and then call me back... but to call me back I had to go through security every single time which meant I was supposed to be telling them my security details to someone who had randomly called me, even though I was expecting the call. The first agent was a bit surprised when I asked them for my 2nd, 4th and 5th character of my security password because he'd called me, told him it works both ways.

233 · 1 May 2017 at 12:01

Steeps said:
I've had this myself, trying to sort out a banking issue they had to pass it up the chain and then call me back... but to call me back I had to go through security every single time which meant I was supposed to be telling them my security details to someone who had randomly called me, even though I was expecting the call. The first agent was a bit surprised when I asked them for my 2nd, 4th and 5th character of my security password because he'd called me, told him it works both ways.

tried this it blows there minds,

Woden · 1 May 2017 at 12:04

Steeps said:
I've had this myself, trying to sort out a banking issue they had to pass it up the chain and then call me back... but to call me back I had to go through security every single time which meant I was supposed to be telling them my security details to someone who had randomly called me, even though I was expecting the call. The first agent was a bit surprised when I asked them for my 2nd, 4th and 5th character of my security password because he'd called me, told him it works both ways.

The crazy thing is I've been using 2FA in video games for years. How is my Warcraft character more secure than my bank account?

Kronos · 1 May 2017 at 13:14

God forbid that we should blame the companies for the poor security measures. Of course we have to take responsible action on our own security. But when you hear of professional people getting duped by increasingly sophisticated scams, when you hear of companies, who really should have better procedures in place, being hacked not just once either, looking at you TalkTalk, what chance has the ordinary guy have. I have had mu bank phone me and get very uppity when I asked them to prove to me who they were before I divulged anything and they were not happy about it.

Glaucus · 1 May 2017 at 13:18

Kenai said:
Things like that may need more pressure applied to close out obvious routes for scams to operate but generally I find banks are doing a fairly good job these days.

Banks still phone you and request security info before they talk to you, which I find infuriating. Should phone/email/text you with a reference number, that you then go look up the official bank number of their site and phone up.

and yes the amount of places with out 2fa is shocking, all though it is slowly, very slowly improving.

asim18 · 1 May 2017 at 15:14

There are some serious security flaws out there. The biggest one is how easy it is to spoof a telephone number. Same with Text Messages. 2FA is the smallest hurdle for a determined criminal lol it's as good as nothing.

The flaws need to be there especially such basic ones. When the inevitable collapse of the banking system happens and everyone's money is gone, something will have to be blamed. And this inevitability is not helped by the fact that we idiots are pushing for paperless money lol. First they made money silverless, then paperless, and when it's all electronic they can just delete it, copy and paste it. I mean they're already trying to blame WW3 on hacking lol.

Werewolf · 1 May 2017 at 15:20

Asim can you stop with the conspiracy stuff in virtually every thread you respond to.

asim18 · 1 May 2017 at 15:32

Werewolf said:
Asim can you stop with the conspiracy stuff in virtually every thread you respond to.

It's not a conspiracy that it's very easy to spoof a telephone number. I've personally received calls from 02070000000, 0000000000, 1111111111, 555555555. As have many other people. - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-tel...-nuisance-calls-and-messages/phone-spoof-scam

2FA authentication is also very useless depending on the delivery method. - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06/2fa_missed_warning/
There was also a long BBC documentary on the basic insecurity of SMS system as well as 2FA several months ago.

The collapse of banking/economy is also a valid concern. The economy is indefinite, not infinite. And saying something will be blamed IF it does collapse is pretty much certainty.

And saying it is dangerous to have all electronic money at a time in history when everything electronic is hack-able, is a valid concern.

I then said money used to be silver, then paper, then digital. This is also reality and no conspiracy. The fact that digital currency is easier for hackers to hack than silver and paper, is not a conspiracy. A hacker cant hack physical silver or paper. It's the reality of hacking, no conspiracy.

I then said they're trying to blame WW3 on hacking, well that's also reality, Remember those Russian hackers and all that? There's a big risk of some hack sparking WW3.

I always give my reasoning for my beliefs, I'm not being personal with anyone, I'm not attacking anyone. If I'm breaking any rules in simply explaining myself then I'm really sorry.

Caged · 1 May 2017 at 15:38

It's more or less impossible to prevent the outbound CLI being set to whatever people want to set it to - there is no authentication present in the system. The proposed/abandoned ENUM system would have run the telephone numbering system like DNS - where it was easy to see the ownership of zones, perform reverse lookups, secure the records with DNSSEC, provide public keys for secure communication etc etc. - but no telephone companies were that fussed about supporting it since it enables easy resolution of telephone numbers to SIP endpoints, and completely removes a revenue stream (selling minutes). Trying to shoehorn CLI authentication on top of the archaic system we have now would break it.

dowie · 1 May 2017 at 15:39

Deus Ex said:
People taking some responsibility for their actions would be a better idea.

this

While I feel a bit sorry for elderly people falling victim to phishing e-mails if they're confused by online banking they perhaps shouldn't use it or let a relative deal with it.

It is hardly confined to banks ether - seems to be a regular free/trash paper story to have some chavy looking parent pulling their best daily fail face in some story about their brat of a kid running up a couple of grand through in game purchases on the iPod they put their credit card details into willingly and gave the kid free reign to use.

Or some student who spent half their holiday on instagram/facebook and now is upset that they've got to fork out £500 in data charges.

Some family begging on Facebook/setting up a just giving page because they don't want to fork out for 2 grand in medical bills themselves after their son decided to skip travel insurance on his gap yah.

It is actually slightly annoying that some of them end up getting their money back/debt wiped as it just further encourages the entitlement culture/lack of personal responsibility.

Caged · 1 May 2017 at 15:47

I feel there needs to be a way for more vulnerable people to delegate control of online spending and communications to somebody else. So inbound/outbound email is queued until a designated person has had a chance to check on the contents to ensure no bank information is being sent to a Nigerian prince, payment cards that put a hold on a customer not present transaction and link to shopping carts to show what has been spent etc. and the relative can then release the funds if it looks legit. It's really easy for someone who isn't confident on a computer to sign up for Amazon 1-Click and accidentally buy everything they see.

dowie · 1 May 2017 at 15:54

Well there is nothing stopping people from doing that - if an elderly person isn't competent to use e-mail, online banking etc.. then they can just not use that without their relative. If they're really getting to the point where they're incapable then they can go as far as delegating power of attorney.

robfosters · 1 May 2017 at 17:30

My dad's 68 and completely naive about all this. He did the responsible thing and let me take control of all his Internet banking and such, so that any emails only come to me. He doesn't even want the login details of his online accounts. Plus, we also give my phone number, so i deal with any calls whether they be genuine or shady.

Dis86 · 1 May 2017 at 18:20

robfosters said:
My dad's 68 and completely naive about all this. He did the responsible thing and let me take control of all his Internet banking and such, so that any emails only come to me. He doesn't even want the login details of his online accounts. Plus, we also give my phone number, so i deal with any calls whether they be genuine or shady.

There you go. You and him are smart.

mrochester · 1 May 2017 at 20:18

Dis86 said:
There you go. You and him are smart.

It's smart, but only works if you have the time to deal with all of someone else's admin as well as your own. I am the go to point for all sorts of 'online' account activity in my family and it can take a lot of your time.