BBC programme today on an extreme case of Courier Fraud

WillPS

grumbler said:

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.

Why are you talking about dividends now? Dividends paid by a bank are of no consequence to their clients.

Unless you can substantiate a link between dividends payable and the 'interest and cashback' you previously referred to I must conclude you are clutching at straws.

General_Grant

WillPS said:

grumbler said:

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.

Why are you talking about dividends now? Dividends paid by a bank are of no consequence to their clients.

Unless you can substantiate a link between dividends payable and the 'interest and cashback' you previously referred to I must conclude you are clutching at straws.

Dividends were mentioned because they are paid from profits.  Customers of banks are the source of those profits, which means they either pay more or receive less and thus "pay".

phillw

eskbanker said:
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.

They probably are computerized, but there is no security or validation.

So there is no way to tell the difference between the real banks foreign call center that shows up with their uk customer service number and someone who setup a fake call center that does the exact same thing.

They are saying that they can't get rid of number spoofing until we switch over to VOIP in 2025, but as VOIP is one of the methods people use to number spoof then I'll believe it when I see it.

grumbler

phillw said:

eskbanker said:
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.

They probably are computerized, but there is no security or validation.

So there is no way to tell the difference between the real banks foreign call center that shows up with their uk customer service number and someone who setup a fake call center that does the exact same thing.

They are saying that they can't get rid of number spoofing until we switch over to VOIP in 2025, but as VOIP is one of the methods people use to number spoof then I'll believe it when I see it.

. The loophole in question was that for the line to get disconnected the CALLER had to hang up too, not just the recipient. This loophole was actively used by scammers and was closed eventually, I believe. 

WillPS

General_Grant said:

WillPS said:

grumbler said:

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.

Why are you talking about dividends now? Dividends paid by a bank are of no consequence to their clients.

Unless you can substantiate a link between dividends payable and the 'interest and cashback' you previously referred to I must conclude you are clutching at straws.

Dividends were mentioned because they are paid from profits.  Customers of banks are the source of those profits, which means they either pay more or receive less and thus "pay".

That's not a universal truth.

There are plenty of banks which make a loss on the features or benefits they offer certain customers. Are the customers who don't receive those perks paying for the features or benefits of others?

Are Chase US customers (who normally have to pay for their bank accounts) paying for the free + loss making perks bank accounts of Chase UK customers?

No, of course not - the business is chosing to make a loss and it's up to them what they do with their money.

On the flipside, if a bank made a surplus of profit, would that profit be returned to customers in the form of interest rates and cashback incentives? It's possible, if they thought there was a chance that would yield ROI but I very much doubt it.

The wider market set the marker for where leading interest rates and cashback incentives are, overall business profitability are barely a factor in whether or not each individual bank nudges upwards. The reality is that unless there was a strong business case for doing so they wouldn't.

Really can't abide the notion that some people have that they are being diddled because they haven't been a victim of fraud and so haven't "benefitted" in the same way that victims have. I haven't had a house fire nor do I intend to have one but I don't begrudge the victims who have benefitted from payouts from my insurer for them.

eskbanker

grumbler said:

phillw said:

eskbanker said:
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.

They probably are computerized, but there is no security or validation.

So there is no way to tell the difference between the real banks foreign call center that shows up with their uk customer service number and someone who setup a fake call center that does the exact same thing.

They are saying that they can't get rid of number spoofing until we switch over to VOIP in 2025, but as VOIP is one of the methods people use to number spoof then I'll believe it when I see it.

. The loophole I question was that for the line to get disconnected the CALLER had to hang up too, not just the recipient. This loophole was actively used by scammers and was closed eventually, I believe. 

I had a look for definitive info about this but wasn't successful - as I understand it there's a call clearing parameter that acts as a timeout, essentially hanging up the call automatically if the caller fails to do so, and saw a reference to this timeout period being reduced but didn't find anything that suggests it went to zero.  However, a quick experiment calling my own landline would seem to validate call termination by the recipient, so happy to accept that my earlier post was out of date on this subject, but does anyone have any authoritative source that confirms if/how/when this was changed?

WillPS

eskbanker said:

grumbler said:

phillw said:

eskbanker said:
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.

They probably are computerized, but there is no security or validation.

So there is no way to tell the difference between the real banks foreign call center that shows up with their uk customer service number and someone who setup a fake call center that does the exact same thing.

They are saying that they can't get rid of number spoofing until we switch over to VOIP in 2025, but as VOIP is one of the methods people use to number spoof then I'll believe it when I see it.

. The loophole I question was that for the line to get disconnected the CALLER had to hang up too, not just the recipient. This loophole was actively used by scammers and was closed eventually, I believe. 

I had a look for definitive info about this but wasn't successful - as I understand it there's a call clearing parameter that acts as a timeout, essentially hanging up the call automatically if the caller fails to do so, and saw a reference to this timeout period being reduced but didn't find anything that suggests it went to zero.  However, a quick experiment calling my own landline would seem to validate call termination by the recipient, so happy to accept that my earlier post was out of date on this subject, but does anyone have any authoritative source that confirms if/how/when this was changed?

I think the behaviour differs depending on exchange and whether you have an Openreach provided landline or a cable one.

robatwork

phillw said:

eskbanker said:
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.

They probably are computerized, but there is no security or validation.

So there is no way to tell the difference between the real banks foreign call center that shows up with their uk customer service number and someone who setup a fake call center that does the exact same thing.

They are saying that they can't get rid of number spoofing until we switch over to VOIP in 2025, but as VOIP is one of the methods people use to number spoof then I'll believe it when I see it.

Count me in the same camp as you. I now have a VoIP system and can easily now change my outgoing number to anything. VoIP will make number spoofing easier unless it's actively restricted, and even if Ofcom for example do this, it won't necessarily stop foreign spoofers.

eskbanker

Ofcom claimed to have support from UK telcos to bar foreign spoofers masquerading as UK numbers but their press release was short on detail:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2021/phone-companies-to-block-scam-calls-from-abroad

We expect the new measures to be rolled out by the phone networks as a priority. So far, at least two networks have introduced the system, and others are looking at how to implement it.

On the wider issues of VOIP and spoofing, again they claim they're heading in the right direction but are loath to be specific!

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/scams/phone-spoof-scam

What is being done?

Calls with spoofed numbers can and do come from all over the world and account for a significant and growing proportion of nuisance calls.

That's why Ofcom is working with the international regulators – as well as the telecoms industry – to find solutions to the problem.

Voice over IP (VoIP) technology – the type of technology used to make internet calls – is often used in spoofing. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which helps to develop internet standards, has created a group specifically to tackle this issue.

robatwork

I remember the billions spent on the NHS infrastructure project supposed to link NHS records throughout our green and somewhat unpleasant land. That was in the 90s. I also know that I had a scan at a hospital recently and a GP in the same county and health authority had no way to access those scans or results. 

Confidence in Ofcom being able to coordinate international regulators is below absolute zero.