Don't be fooled by cunning con artists

peterbaker

Er ...

eskbanker wrote:

What 'headlong leap into launching half-baked competitive ideas of market-leading innovation'?

Erm ... lots of them since HBOS launched the first internet banking service IIRC and then everyone piled in, and then the crazy credit card market in UK (that really was bonkers) from a few years before MSE launched I think ,and Stoozing was probably one of the favorite subjects back then(!), by then of course we also had virtual banks, then prepaid Mastercards, fresh made chips with some of it - all totally under control by assorted marketing chefs of course

...social conscience...

Not the same as social purpose, is it? Which was? Day One in banking history ... doors opened in Bedrock, the Flintstones, their neighbours the Rubbles and all the good townspeople took money out from under straw mattresses where it was always getting nicked or the pet dinosaur chewed it and queued at the bank to hand it over to be put in the ... "safe". Later on, bankers got the idea that if they used the money rather than left it in the safe, they could do all sorts of other socially useful things with it, but the money was still "safe" right? Lo and behold, further ideas abounded and banks started taking commercial risks with customers' money held in trust, but still managed to make a pretty extra penny for themselves and not involve the customers in the bank's risks. Then what ... ?

me wrote:

... Brexit ...

would you rather I continue to shuffle toward the cliff with hoards of others? Am I not allowed to kick and scream as we get closer to the edge? :rotfl:

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

Erm ... lots of them since HBOS launched the first internet banking service IIRC and then everyone piled in, and then the crazy credit card market in UK (that really was bonkers) from a few years before MSE launched I think ,and Stoozing was probably one of the favorite subjects back then(!), by then of course we also had virtual banks, then prepaid Mastercards, fresh made chips with some of it - all totally under control by assorted marketing chefs of course

Interpretation again I suppose, I'd call those 'industry developments from which customers benefit' - undoubtedly the early iterations will be more rudimentary than later ones, but that doesn't necessarily make the first to market half-baked as such. Are you suggesting that banks should have stuck with quill pens and dusty ledgers?

peterbaker wrote: »

Not the same as social purpose, is it? Which was? Day One in banking history ... doors opened in Bedrock, the Flintstones, their neighbours the Rubbles and all the good townspeople took money out from under straw mattresses where it was always getting nicked or the pet dinosaur chewed it and queued at the bank to hand it over to be put in the ... "safe". Later on, bankers got the idea that if they used the money rather than left it in the safe, they could do all sorts of other socially useful things with it, but the money was still "safe" right? Lo and behold, further ideas abounded and banks started taking commercial risks with customers' money held in trust, but still managed to make a pretty extra penny for themselves and not involve the customers in the bank's risks. Then what ... ?

I'm still none the wiser about exactly what you actually mean by 'social purpose' (which is presumably different from the 'social care' you refer to in a later post?) - your little story above appears to be something you disapprove of but earlier you felt that banks should 'work together toward social purpose', what does that mean?

peterbaker wrote: »

would you rather I continue to shuffle toward the cliff with hoards of others? Am I not allowed to kick and scream as we get closer to the edge? :rotfl:

I'm not planning on engaging on Brexit matters on this thread as there are plenty of others more suited for that, my point here was highlighting the juxtaposition of claiming to have an open mind while simultaneously demonstrating one which is very much made up!

Terry_Towelling

Just jumping back a few posts to those posters who felt affronted/patronised by the suggestion that some over 60s are vulnerable, please do try and keep some perspective. It doesn't mean all over 60s are vulnerable - in just the same way that my recent suggestion (on another thread) that a postman might be dishonest doesn't mean they all are - I got a similar amount of backlash for that.

And if anyone approaching/reaching/surpassing 60 is smug enough to think that they feel OK now and couldn't possibly fall for a scam because they are not remotely vulnerable, then please note my own wife, fit, healthy and the most un-vulnerable person I have ever met had within a few years of her 60th birthday become very vulnerable through the acquisition of dementia (tentatively diagnosed now as Alzheimer's logopaenic aphasia). Ten years on she can hardly speak or understand a word and requires constant attention to manage even the most basic of human tasks - and still tries to fight off all necessary interventions from me, her carer. It comes out of the blue, can move very quickly and you haven't a hope in hell if it comes your way!

Is this a diversion of the thread? Maybe but do please stop being so smug about your capabilities because they can be very easily snatched away from you - just like your money.

Sapphire

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Just jumping back a few posts to those posters who felt affronted/patronised by the suggestion that some over 60s are vulnerable, please do try and keep some perspective. It doesn't mean all over 60s are vulnerable - in just the same way that my recent suggestion (on another thread) that a postman might be dishonest doesn't mean they all are - I got a similar amount of backlash for that.

And if anyone approaching/reaching/surpassing 60 is smug enough to think that they feel OK now and couldn't possibly fall for a scam because they are not remotely vulnerable, then please note my own wife, fit, healthy and the most un-vulnerable person I have ever met had within a few years of her 60th birthday become very vulnerable through the acquisition of dementia (tentatively diagnosed now as Alzheimer's logopaenic aphasia). Ten years on she can hardly speak or understand a word and requires constant attention to manage even the most basic of human tasks - and still tries to fight off all necessary interventions from me, her carer. It comes out of the blue, can move very quickly and you haven't a hope in hell if it comes your way!

Is this a diversion of the thread? Maybe but do please stop being so smug about your capabilities because they can be very easily snatched away from you - just like your money.

However, targeting the over sixties ignores the fact that many other (especially much younger) people can also be 'vulnerable', whether through ignorance, lack of care/knowledge about security considerations or for many other reasons.

peterbaker

The thing I liked about the Barclays message I found waiting for me in my eBanking inbox was that it used images that perhaps the most vulnerable customers might relate to ... an image of a kindly matronly looking bank lady sticks in my mind. Of course Sapphire and TT are right, age cannot be used as a proxy for risk, but it is often a reasonable rule of thumb to use when earnestly going to look for significant groups of casualties or potential casualties relating to all sorts of risk.

If I had access to the complete list of UK personal retail bank fraud statistics relating to personal bank accounts in particular (older customers tend not to have exploited the crazy last twenty five years of the UK credit card market anywhere near as much as us younger sextogenerians!), and not even banks or police have the full data because many customers are embarrassed to report, or may even still be unaware of full extent, I would lay odds on finding a statistically significant group amongst senior citizens in both frequency of fraud events and average size of loss.

The other thing I liked about the Barclays message is that their @DigitalEagles initiative looked like it was some kind of roadshow, which I haven't seen from the other majors.

I did at the weekend receive an email from Santander which reminded me of their particular security help url as given in a list from eskbanker. The sending of their email and message was very much atune to the theme of this thread at this time. The only thing was, I had no idea I still had any live accounts with them so I'd better check thoroughly, else that too may have been a digital hiccup their end :rotfl:

Sapphire

peterbaker wrote: »

The thing I liked about the Barclays message I found waiting for me in my eBanking inbox was that it used images that perhaps the most vulnerable customers might relate to ... an image of a kindly matronly looking bank lady sticks in my mind. Of course Sapphire and TT are right, age cannot be used as a proxy for risk, but it is often a reasonable rule of thumb to use when earnestly going to look for significant groups of casualties or potential casualties relating to all sorts of risk.

I find that older people are generally much more clued in wary about their money than younger ones, who often blithely buy things on credit (AKA debt), and seem to willingly throw their personal details about all over the Internet. On a train a few months ago, there was a woman in her twenties who was yelling out her account number and other details over her mobile phone so that the entire carriage could hear her. (That made people sit up and look up from their own mobile phones.) She wasn't even drunk.

And targeting such messages at those who have dementia is pretty pointless. Someone with dementia is unlikely to understand a warning message, let alone a scam (I know this, because we have someone in the family with the disease). Those who have this terrible illness, even at its early stages, should not even be administering their own accounts. They are at risk from predators of all sorts, including sometimes their own families, if they hand over power of attorney to them.

Terry_Towelling

Sapphire wrote: »

And targeting such messages at those who have dementia is pretty pointless. Someone with dementia is unlikely to understand a warning message, let alone a scam (I know this, because we have someone in the family with the disease). Those who have this terrible illness, even at its early stages, should not even be administering their own accounts. They are at risk from predators of all sorts, including sometimes their own families, if they hand over power of attorney to them.

I don't think your experience of how dementia sets in is as extensive as perhaps you think. A criminal doesn't know someone has dementia when they set out to steal.

Clearly, targeting someone handicapped to a significant degree with dementia isn't going to help a criminal if that person has someone around to look after them. The problem is people have dementia for possibly 20 years before they actually realise it or get diagnosed. During that time there are subtle changes to the person. Eventually, something happens and it becomes apparent that all is not well but the person still believes themselves to be well. It isn't as simple as yesterday I was free of dementia, today I have it and am incapable.

You need to live with someone for a long time during the process of dementia before you can really know how their state changes over many years before you finally realise what is happening.

Sapphire

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I don't think your experience of how dementia sets in is as extensive as perhaps you think. A criminal doesn't know someone has dementia when they set out to steal.

Clearly, targeting someone handicapped to a significant degree with dementia isn't going to help a criminal if that person has someone around to look after them. The problem is people have dementia for possibly 20 years before they actually realise it or get diagnosed. During that time there are subtle changes to the person. Eventually, something happens and it becomes apparent that all is not well but the person still believes themselves to be well. It isn't as simple as yesterday I was free of dementia, today I have it and am incapable.

You need to live with someone for a long time during the process of dementia before you can really know how their state changes over many years before you finally realise what is happening.

Yes, believe me that I know very well from experience about the process of the disease. My relative changed subtly over quite a few years, and the family did have to take control of her finances from very early on because she would get confused about letters and so forth that she received from the bank. It was particularly noticeable in her because she was very good at organising her finances until well into her seventies. However, one good thing was that she never did any online banking, so was less susceptible to online scams than those who organise their finances online. (Nonetheless, she was always receiving those letters from 'charities' and so on, attempting to part her from her money.)

Remember, also, that many people do not have someone around to 'look after them'. Such people are especially vulnerable, especially at the early stages of the disease, but no amount of 'warning' them is going to prevent them from becoming prey to fraud. Had my relative been online, that may well have happened.

Terry_Towelling

Sapphire wrote: »

'Those who have this terrible illness, even at its early stages, should not even be administering their own accounts.

The disease process can go undetected for decades and no one knows if they, or someone else has a growing problem that is steadily making them increasingly vulnerable and it isn't so straightforward as saying, 'anyone with dementia should not be administering their own accounts'. In fact, you can't legally take away their independence (even after diagnosis) unless they have 'lost capacity' and you have a legal power to make decisions for them.

Sapphire wrote: »

Remember, also, that many people do not have someone around to 'look after them'. Such people are especially vulnerable, especially at the early stages of the disease, but no amount of 'warning' them is going to prevent them from becoming prey to fraud. Had my relative been online, that may well have happened.

That is part of the point I was originally making about people not being so smug about their capabilities and perceived lack of vulnerability as they age. And you have a point about people with more significant degrees of cognitive impairment not being able to heed the warnings but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be warned or that the warnings shouldn't target particular groups who are perceived to be more vulnerable. Neither should such targeting give rise to feelings of being patronised - rather we should be grateful for anything designed to help us and thank our lucky stars that we are able to understand the help offered even if we think we don't need it.

So, what we may be agreeing on is that some of the warnings should also be targeted at those who are in a position to look out for certain vulnerable groups. Is there also a need for financial institutions to be made aware of vulnerable customers who are still managing their own finances? That could be a very sensitive issue with all sorts of ramifications.

Cornucopia

With some personal experience of these issues, I'm absolutely convinced that the Banks can and should be doing more to stop fraud generally, and to tailor their services to vulnerable people.

There's no reason why the Banking systems should not have a series of controls built in that any customer could use to protect themselves, and any vulnerable person or their carer could be guided through.

Things that might be controlled:-

- Large value transfers and withdrawals.
- Setting up new recipients for Bill Payments and Standing Orders.
- Requesting new Cards, PINs and Cheque Books.
- Changes of personal details such as eMail addresses, Phone numbers and Addresses.

Some more reliable method for checking ID needs to be found, too. I appreciate that if someone has memory issues, this could be difficult, but perhaps the industry could take advice on the types of data that will tend to stay with people the longest when their memory is failing? Abstract things like asking the number of Direct Debits on an account are likely to be beyond many vulnerable people, whereas most people will remember the Middle Names of their parents, or the name of their first pet.