Met Chief says that banks shouldn't necessarily refund due to fraud

Ballard

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/dont-refund-online-victims-met-chief-tells-banks

I do see his point. Whilst it is in the banks interests to have us all banking online I feel that we must all take responsibility on our internet security.

Even with up to date virus definitions etc., it's possible to be compromised but people should do their utmost to make life difficult for the fraudsters. Why should the banks pay out if someone hasn't kept their machine as safe as possible?

GingerBob_3

Hogan-Howe, stick to what you know about. e.g. wasting public money.

Ballard

GingerBob wrote: »

Hogan-Howe, stick to what you know about. e.g. wasting public money.

I've made my position clear. I feel strongly that everyone should have up to date antivirus software and firewalls to keep themselves as safe as possible online. I accept that new virus attacks appear several times a day and that this means that there's always the possibility of being attacked regardless of the security installed. For this reason it is reasonable that banks repay fraud victims in these cases.

On the other hand, if I don't bother to update my antivirus software and click on random links thereby causing myself to become a fraud victim I don't see why my bank should refund me.

I get the impression that you have the opposing viewpoint and feel that banks should always refund. Everyone is obviously welcome to their view but I'd be interested if you could expand on your reasoning.

redux

A few years ago I complained to a certain phone company that some of their customers were spammers diverting the supplied phone number to a mobile phone in another country. I suggested they should cut off such people.

The company replied, and also suggested I contact a certain named policeman specialising in online fraud.

One police sergeant in London. For the whole country.

reehsetin

Last year it was revealed that police follow up fewer than one in 100 frauds and there were fewer than 9,000 convictions out of more than 3m frauds in 12 months.

It hinges on this for me - they don't even bother going after the fraudsters, even if everyone had up to date top of the line security fraudsters would find a way, and it's certainly worth their while seeing as they're barely investigated. If one person does the same thing 101 times it doesn't seem fair to penalise the victim - they should have been stopped one of the other 100 times.

It's not necessarily easy to keep on top of online security especially certain generations - banks are saving money each time we use their internet banking, there's no costs for a human to deal with a transaction, all that money should be invested in to improving their processes so it's less susceptible to viruses and frauds.

ChiefGrasscutter

I have some sympathy for @Ballard's position.
The problem as ever is where to draw the line - and I have no better ideas than others on this forum.

I know some of them
Highly intelligent - but really should not be allowed anywhere near anything more complicated than a TV.

One has a computer that sort of boots up - umpteen strange errors and AV long since out of date and never updated from the original as bought 1 year free offer.
They don't care if they get scammed - bank refunds - end of story.
Frankly I'd not use it for online browsing let alone on line banking

Another caught by a credit card scam free offer type purchase - again shrugs shoulders and credit card pays up - Why bother checking if CC company pays up.

Another has the same password for pretty well everything - my encouragements to not do this are met with derision and suggestions to get a life.

Eventually perhaps it will be viewed in the same way as leaving your keys in the car's ignition will be viewed - unwise and no the insurance will not be paying up.

It would be interesting to hear from those with extensive experience of how other western countries banks deal with this and what are their policies......

Ballard

Most people seem to be viewing this along the lines of the banks are losing money... so what. I can understand that approach but another thing to consider is where the money is going to.

The criminals aren't nice people. I obviously have no evidence but it's not unreasonable to assume that some of the money stolen will help fund terrorists, for example. Regardless of what (in)action the police may be taking I don't think that that should exclude us from being prudent with our internet security.

GingerBob_3

Ballard wrote: »

I've made my position clear. I feel strongly that everyone should have up to date antivirus software and firewalls to keep themselves as safe as possible online. I accept that new virus attacks appear several times a day and that this means that there's always the possibility of being attacked regardless of the security installed. For this reason it is reasonable that banks repay fraud victims in these cases.

On the other hand, if I don't bother to update my antivirus software and click on random links thereby causing myself to become a fraud victim I don't see why my bank should refund me.

I get the impression that you have the opposing viewpoint and feel that banks should always refund. Everyone is obviously welcome to their view but I'd be interested if you could expand on your reasoning.

This article from the BBC, or rather, the views of the guy from Which, are pretty much in line with what I think:


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35890028


I do like this quote from Hogan-Howe:


"If you are continually rewarded for bad behaviour you will probably continue to do it but if the obverse is true you might consider changing behaviour."


The Met' is a shining example of this sentiment.

Kim_13

Is there even any AntiVirus for mobile phones/tablets? I had McAfee Total Protection but all it would do on a mobile was back up the content and email me a photo of the user if my passcode is incorrectly entered 3 times, no AntiVirus protection. I just got the Anti Virus variant this year.

I only use online baking on an iPad (Apple devices are attacked less often than Windows ones, I believe) using apps rather than the full sites where possible. The iPad is passcode locked and almost never leaves the house. My Windows laptop seems to have a virus despite having had up to date Anti Virus on it.

It does seem like a person can't follow all online safety advice. I have a good memory but I couldn't have different passwords for everything without writing them down (which we're told not to do.)

If it was ever legislated in this way then I would want rid of all online banking, but is it even possible to have online banking removed once you have it? There would also be a backlash I think due to some accounts forcing (FlexDirect) or effectively forcing (TSB, condition of interest) people to have online banking. I can't recall Tesco giving a non-online banking option either.

takman

I can understand the point he is making because I have heard of so many people loosing money due to obvious scams and tricks. When the banks refund the "victims" then they are effective funding criminals and their activities. So anything that will stop the criminals getting money illegally should be seriously considered.

I personally did some research and bought the antivirus that was the most effective. I then installed this on all my computers and devices. It only took me just over an hour to do this and I have a years cover, so there really is no excuse not to have it.

I also use a different password for every website and login. I have a system to make it easy to remember them all (which for obvious reasons I won't divulge). My password contain's numbers letters and symbols. None of which are relavent to me and don't contain any words.

The amount of people who use passwords which relate to something they like or an important date or year is crazy!.

Eco_Miser

takman wrote: »

I also use a different password for every website and login. I have a system to make it easy to remember them all (which for obvious reasons I won't divulge). My password contain's numbers letters and symbols. None of which are relavent to me and don't contain any words.

Which is great if the site will allow them. Words are OK if you have several in the password.
I used to use a system to remember all the different passwords, then I realised that if someone got one, the others were pretty easy to guess, get two and it's obvious. Now I use Password Safe, a password manager, and totally random, machine generated, passwords.

takman wrote: »

The amount of people who use passwords which relate to something they like or an important date or year is crazy!.

Encouraged by banks and others asking for 'memorable data' with a list of preset questions.