BBC programme today on an extreme case of Courier Fraud

eskbanker

grumbler said:

eskbanker said:

Murmansk said:

The man said the key thing was when the scammer, at the start, told them to ring 999. It would seem the scammers kept the line open and played a dial tone, then a ringtone and someone answered pretending to be the 999 operator.

...enough to fool those who don't realise that hanging up after receiving a call on a landline doesn't terminate it, as this has to be done by the caller....

If this is still really the case, I don't understand why in the 21st century, when everything is computerised, telephone companies don't change this nonsense and the authorities don't force them to do this. And what does this statement mean in the programme - "That was stopped by the telephone companies who cut that gap" [4:50]?

I haven't played the programme so don't know about that latter remark, but in answer to your first point, the issue is that not everything is computerised in the world of landline telephony, so the lowest common denominator applies even though many have equipment and circuits that can accommodate newer technology.  There is naturally movement towards adoption of new digital standards but it's nothing like as simple as you make out, which is also why number spoofing is still so prevalent....

grumbler

eskbanker said:

grumbler said:

eskbanker said:

Murmansk said:

The man said the key thing was when the scammer, at the start, told them to ring 999. It would seem the scammers kept the line open and played a dial tone, then a ringtone and someone answered pretending to be the 999 operator.

...enough to fool those who don't realise that hanging up after receiving a call on a landline doesn't terminate it, as this has to be done by the caller....

If this is still really the case, I don't understand why in the 21st century, when everything is computerised, telephone companies don't change this nonsense and the authorities don't force them to do this. And what does this statement mean in the programme - "That was stopped by the telephone companies who cut that gap" [4:50]?

I haven't played the programme so don't know about that latter remark, but in answer to your first point, the issue is that not everything is computerised in the world of landline telephony, so the lowest common denominator applies even though many have equipment and circuits that can accommodate newer technology.  There is naturally movement towards adoption of new digital standards but it's nothing like as simple as you make out, which is also why number spoofing is still so prevalent....

My understanding is that the technical loophole that you mentioned had been closed - that's what the remark means. And the former GP dialled 999 without hanging up first (!). If so, I absolutely agree with Daliah that "The positive news in this case is that the GP ... is retired, so patients ...are no longer exposed to her."

Typically for many journalists, BBC one talks a lot about many non-essential details while paying very little attention to this 999 call - the most important part of this story.

And the fact that no explanation was given how the criminals knew the PINs makes the whole story even more superficial and less credible.

Shame on you, BBC!

WillPS

General_Grant said:

WillPS said:

badger09 said:

 Followed closely by “I’m paying for your stupidity”😡

How much do you pay your bank for your current account services?

There are lots of ways in which the rest of us "pay" for the refunds.

Name them.

In the UK we typically pay nothing for day to day in credit banking services. In fact the banks pay my household ~£50/month in rewards and cashback each month.

Banks aren't not-for-profits and it's foolish to think that if they didn't have one particular expense then the benefit from that would be passed on to consumers. They are uniquely positioned to be able to help people who are being scammed to realise what is going on. It's right they should be held to a high standard and when their customer is a genuine victim who could have been protected, they are punished financially for that.

To those who consider this all to be implausible and/or the result of stupidity, I'd encourage you to watch this video where a Youtuber who specialises in exposing and dissecting scams reveals how he himself fell victim to a scam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIWV5fSaUB8

(And no, it wasn't an especially elaborate deception either - it's all about being in the right place at the right time.)

grumbler

WillPS said:

General_Grant said:

WillPS said:

badger09 said:

 Followed closely by “I’m paying for your stupidity”😡

How much do you pay your bank for your current account services?

There are lots of ways in which the rest of us "pay" for the refunds.

Name them.

Personally, I pay by getting lower interest rate on my savings and smaller cashback on spending. And, if I borrow, - by paying higher interest on credit cards, loans etc.

WillPS

grumbler said:

WillPS said:

General_Grant said:

WillPS said:

badger09 said:

 Followed closely by “I’m paying for your stupidity”😡

How much do you pay your bank for your current account services?

There are lots of ways in which the rest of us "pay" for the refunds.

Name them.

Personally, I pay by getting lower interest rate on my savings and smaller cashback on spending. And, if I borrow, - by paying higher interest on credit cards, loans etc.

I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest interest rates are held back by incidence of fraud by remote scammers.

If that were the case I would expect to see stronger interest rates for offline/branch/passbook accounts which are harder for telescammers to raid.

grumbler

No evidence is needed. The money doesn't come from thin air. If a bank pays half a million to some idiot, it has to get this money somewhere.

Branches are very expensive to run. "Telescammers" (unlike hackers) target idiots, not accounts. Idiots can transfer money from one account to another, like it was in this case.

[Deleted User]

Given some of the places I have worked and the people in finance, I’m not surprised they get scammed!  A lot of them are out the arc. 

WillPS

grumbler said:

No evidence is needed. The money doesn't come from thin air. If a bank pays half a million to some idiot, it has to get this money somewhere.

Branches are very expensive to run. "Telescammers" (unlike hackers) target idiots, not accounts. Idiots can transfer money from one account to another, like it was in this case.

I note you're completely ignoring my point that banks don't have a habit of passing on profits to customers in the form of benefits.

Evidence absolutely is needed, otherwise your theory is just that. Show me evidence of product interest rates being affected being held back by banks compensating victims for fraud. I've suggested that offline/branch only products having stronger interest rates would be one such way you could substantiate that argument (they don't, of course), you could also do a comparison of interest rates available over time benchmarked against the Bank of England rate perhaps.

Or you can just be the guy on the internet mouthing off unsubstantiated nonsense. Your call.

born_again

grumbler said:

eskbanker said:

grumbler said:

eskbanker said:

Murmansk said:

The man said the key thing was when the scammer, at the start, told them to ring 999. It would seem the scammers kept the line open and played a dial tone, then a ringtone and someone answered pretending to be the 999 operator.

...enough to fool those who don't realise that hanging up after receiving a call on a landline doesn't terminate it, as this has to be done by the caller....

If this is still really the case, I don't understand why in the 21st century, when everything is computerised, telephone companies don't change this nonsense and the authorities don't force them to do this. And what does this statement mean in the programme - "That was stopped by the telephone companies who cut that gap" [4:50]?

I haven't played the programme so don't know about that latter remark, but in answer to your first point, the issue is that not everything is computerised in the world of landline telephony, so the lowest common denominator applies even though many have equipment and circuits that can accommodate newer technology.  There is naturally movement towards adoption of new digital standards but it's nothing like as simple as you make out, which is also why number spoofing is still so prevalent....

My understanding is that the technical loophole that you mentioned had been closed - that's what the remark means. And the former GP dialled 999 without hanging up first (!). If so, I absolutely agree with Daliah that "The positive news in this case is that the GP ... is retired, so patients ...are no longer exposed to her."

Typically for many journalists, BBC one talks a lot about many non-essential details while paying very little attention to this 999 call - the most important part of this story.

And the fact that no explanation was given how the criminals knew the PINs makes the whole story even more superficial and less credible.

Shame on you, BBC!

Usual way is to ask them to key PIN into phone & a tone reader pulls the numbers up 👍

grumbler

WillPS said:

grumbler said:

No evidence is needed. The money doesn't come from thin air. If a bank pays half a million to some idiot, it has to get this money somewhere.

Branches are very expensive to run. "Telescammers" (unlike hackers) target idiots, not accounts. Idiots can transfer money from one account to another, like it was in this case.

I note you're completely ignoring my point that banks don't have a habit of passing on profits to customers in the form of benefits.

It's not a point really. Banks must make profit to pay dividends.

Roughly, (profit) = (revenue) - (expenses)

Compensations to 'victims' increase expenses. The only way to sustain profit is to increase revenue, i.e. to charge other customers more and pay them less.

 I've suggested that offline/branch only products having stronger interest rates would be one such way you could substantiate that argument (they don't, of course)

No, they wouldn't.