Strong Customer Authentication - **Now delayed** changes to online verification

masonic

Doc_N wrote: »

Isn't this the real story:

1 Banks look at online possibilities and realise there could be big cost savings - so they make it as easy as possible for customers to bank online. They accept the fraud costs as part of the equation.

2 Customers switch, banks close huge numbers of branches, leaving branches remaining only in large towns and cities - naturally, the banks blame customers for not using the branches now they bank online.

3 Having now a captive market, with large numbers of people unable to get anywhere near a branch, the banks tighten up security because those online customers now have no other options.

Great news for our friendly and caring banks all round.

Banks have no choice about tightening up their security. It will soon be unlawful for them to permit customers to access their accounts without these new security measures. Some banks are offering more than one option to their customers though, which is to be commended.

tempus_fugit

Ergates wrote: »

You can get a basic phone for free with a £10 PAYG top-up from some providers.

If you never give your mobile number to anyone other than the bank it is *very* unlikely to recieve text messages from "spammers" (I've never had a single one in my life, and several companies have my mobile number).

Also if the only thing you ever use the mobile for is online banking authentications and so you just leave it on the desk next ot the computer, why would it matter if someone texted it when you weren't there?

Also 2 - If your computer dongle was capable or receiving text messages from your bank, it would be equally capable of receiving text messages from spammers.

Your plan make literally *no* sense whatsoever. But if you like wasting money, go ahead.

Basically what it is is that some people are just so adamant that they are not going to be forced to follow trends of any sort, particularly the massive one of using mobile phones. I know people like this. If they got a mobile phone even just to receive bank OTPs they would feel that they have been coerced into it, and they will take any other route, even crazy ones like the dongle, to avoid doing so.

Froggitt

As banks are now by default being told by FOS to reimburse scam transactions, you can't really object to them putting more security hoops in place to protect their money.

lightbulb2760

tempus_fugit wrote: »

Basically what it is is that some people are just so adamant that they are not going to be forced to follow trends of any sort, particularly the massive one of using mobile phones. I know people like this. If they got a mobile phone even just to receive bank OTPs they would feel that they have been coerced into it, and they will take any other route, even crazy ones like the dongle, to avoid doing so.

Yes, that describes me exactly!

lightbulb2760

colsten wrote: »

I have had a mobile, with the same number, since the early 1990s. Never received unsolicited texts from spammers.

WOW. That sounds a clever computer. Where did you get if from, what OS is it running? Just as examples, how does it track your steps, how do you take photos with it, how does it receive text messages, how does it store your train and other tickets, how does it call an Uber for you, how do you pay with it at checkouts, how do you use the flashlight on it, how do you scan QR codes with it, how does it find public conveniences for you when you need one in a strange city, and how do you fit it into your pocket? I appreciate that you might not be interested in any of these things but please don't make claims about matters you clearly don't understand.

Point taken. You're quite right that I am not interested in any of the things you mention above. What I should have said was "I have a computer for emails and everything else that I otherwise would require a smart mobile phone to do."

colsten

Froggitt wrote: »

As banks are now by default being told by FOS to reimburse scam transactions, you can't really object to them putting more security hoops in place to protect their money.

But it isn't their money at the end of the day. The ones who are paying are their customers, i.e. us. Our money will be used for it by the banks. For example, in the form of higher charges for loans and general services, or lower interest rates for savings.

meer53

I don't get spam texts either ! My first mobile was a Motorola Brick ! Some people just like to moan really.

Doc_N

colsten wrote: »

But it isn't their money at the end of the day. The ones who are paying are their customers, i.e. us. Our money will be used for it by the banks. For example, in the form of higher charges for loans and general services, or lower interest rates for savings.

Not necessarily. Higher profits are more likely to result in higher dividends to shareholders than lower charges or higher interest rates.

eskbanker

Froggitt wrote: »

banks are now by default being told by FOS to reimburse scam transactions

Do you have a verifiable source for this?

I know that many of the main players chose to sign up in May to a voluntary code of conduct offering increased consumer protection specifically against authorised push payment scams but am unaware of any change in the ombudsman service's stance on this or scams in general....

Froggitt

colsten wrote: »

But it isn't their money at the end of the day. The ones who are paying are their customers, i.e. us. Our money will be used for it by the banks. For example, in the form of higher charges for loans and general services, or lower interest rates for savings.

It is their (the bank's) money once the customer loses their (the customer's) money to scammers, and the bank has to refund the customer.