When banking scams are discussed in the media, why are they not more precise about the details?

What_time_is_it

Seems to happen a lot. Usually in relation to being phoned by somebody pretending to be from a bank. There's always lots of talk about how convincing they sound on the phone and about protecting passwords, etc, but rarely, if ever, do they actually go into detail about what the scam involved. i.e. What was the actual thing that allowed for money to be taken?

There's been quite a lot of coverage about Peter Levy from the BBC being the victim of a scam recently. But again, very little detail about what actually happened. Lots of "protect your passwords", "hang up the phone", etc... But hardly any focus on what the real method was. It's like the media talk up the distraction, but fail to mention the actual theft. Seems like in this particular case it was the downloading of a fake app onto his laptop that was what enabled the theft to take place, but it's far from clear.

I wish that the coverage of these crimes was much clearer about what actually takes place so that people can be forewarned and forearmed. Vague talk about "identity theft" or "scam calls" doesn't do anybody any favours. It's not the identity being stolen, it's the money. And it's not the call that is the scam, that's just the entry point. 

Really annoys me!

gravel_2

I have some experience in TV production (although not directly in News) - broadcasters have to be very careful not to enable crime by showing/describing in detail how it's done. I'm not sure if this applies directly to news broadcasts as well.

3.4: Descriptions or demonstrations of criminal techniques which contain essential details which could enable the commission of crime must not be broadcast unless editorially justified.

Guidance note: Caution may be required in programmes showing relatively common but criminal behaviour such as shoplifting, car or computer-related crime. This is to ensure that broadcasts do not include or demonstrate any particular techniques that would assist with the commission of crime. 

DullGreyGuy

What_time_is_it said:

Seems to happen a lot. Usually in relation to being phoned by somebody pretending to be from a bank. There's always lots of talk about how convincing they sound on the phone and about protecting passwords, etc, but rarely, if ever, do they actually go into detail about what the scam involved. i.e. What was the actual thing that allowed for money to be taken?

There's been quite a lot of coverage about Peter Levy from the BBC being the victim of a scam recently. But again, very little detail about what actually happened. Lots of "protect your passwords", "hang up the phone", etc... But hardly any focus on what the real method was. It's like the media talk up the distraction, but fail to mention the actual theft. Seems like in this particular case it was the downloading of a fake app onto his laptop that was what enabled the theft to take place, but it's far from clear.

I wish that the coverage of these crimes was much clearer about what actually takes place so that people can be forewarned and forearmed. Vague talk about "identity theft" or "scam calls" doesn't do anybody any favours. It's not the identity being stolen, it's the money. And it's not the call that is the scam, that's just the entry point. 

Really annoys me!

The problem is that if you tell the general population how the scam is committed you are telling the population how to commit the scam which may give some teenager in their bedroom the idea that this is an easy way to make money. 

The typical push scam is they have some basic information about you, they phone up, often having spoofed the telephone number of your bank, saying they are calling from the fraud team and your account is being actively targeted. There are various paths it can take but the simplest, and the one a colleague fell for, was they instructed him to log into his online banking whilst they were on the phone and transfer the funds in the account to a "safe account" now else the fraudsters will have stolen it. Clearly not the bank calling and the safe account isn't safe at all but one the fraudsters have access to. Within 5 minutes they'd gotten circa £15k from him. 

You dont need to go into the details of how telephone numbers are spoofed, how to obtain the name and bank account of a person etc to give what the ultimate crux is... dont trust that people who call you are who they say they are, never given passwords/one time codes. Hangup, call back on a number you know to be from your bank and deal with them that way. 

What_time_is_it

Good points above. Thanks.

I just think that lots of people, and particularly old people, are misled into thinking that the scam will actually happen over the phone. If it was made clearer that what is taking place is a combination of misdirection, distraction, and then, ultimately, theft, I think people would be better placed to recognise what is happening and to not be afraid. Like you say, the most common forms of this type of theft involve persuading people to transfer their money to the thief. I'd like to see more focus on this aspect of the crime when it is reported, and less talk of "identity theft" or "phone scams".

The language used around scams is similar to the language used around being "hacked". Really misleading!

slinger2

There was a Channel 5 series called "Scams: Don't Get Caught Out!"

Brie

The language used around scams is similar to the language used around being "hacked". Really misleading!

Not really misleading in my opinion.  Despite all the data protection that is in place there is a lot of information available.  Start with the electoral register, add phone books, then add someone who's savvy with manipulating FB, someone who can hack something that seems harmless like records of library membership, then some disgruntled and broke individual working for a chain of gyms sells a bit of their records or someone leaves their laptop on a train.  Put it all together and have a computer to shake it about and you'll come up with a list of names, with their phone numbers and addresses and possibly who they bank with.  Have the calls put through a computer so they look like they're coming from a local number or the number of a particular bank or government agency.  Top it off with a well written script that makes it very clear that urgent action is required.  Lots of leading questions that make you reveal more info as the call progresses... They say "I'm calling from your bank" and you reply "What? Barclays?" and it all adds up for them.  

jaypers

Scam Busters on iPlayer is well worth a watch. 

Albermarle

On morning TV there are programmes ( I think the above mentioned scambusters is one of them) that go into more detail. Plus it seems scams are discussed nearly every day on Morning Live ( after BBC breakfast news) and on Rip Off Britain when it is running ( BBC again).

My worry is that the people most vulnerable to scams  do not watch these programmes, so it is largely preaching to the converted.

DiamondLil

Albermarle said:

On morning TV there are programmes ( I think the above mentioned scambusters is one of them) that go into more detail. Plus it seems scams are discussed nearly every day on Morning Live ( after BBC breakfast news) and on Rip Off Britain when it is running ( BBC again).

My worry is that the people most vulnerable to scams  do not watch these programmes, so it is largely preaching to the converted.

Scam Interceptors has been on BBC1 (or might have been BBC2) weekday evenings recently.

solidpro

Slightly OT, but I work in telecoms and about 10 years ago I spotted how the lack of regulation over caller ID spoofing and, infact a complete ignorance of how that would be used outside our borders to target people and I tried to highlight it to BBC's moneybox a few times when they started to mention it. They never replied.

Everyone always seemed to trust caller ID like it was absolute and final when it was anything but. I could call anyone presenting the call as their wife, dead father, bank or the local police station and nobody seemed to care. People are *slightly* more educated now, but trust in caller ID seems to be one of the cornerstones of the last 10 years of scamming people over the internet and phone. It's still completely unregulared and all the large tier 1 carriers of phone traffic do not enforce anything over caller ID, although it's starting to happen in other countries - particularly China and the USA.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

Slightly OT, but I work in telecoms and about 10 years ago I spotted how the lack of regulation over caller ID spoofing and, infact a complete ignorance of how that would be used outside our borders to target people and I tried to highlight it to BBC's moneybox a few times when they started to mention it. They never replied.

Everyone always seemed to trust caller ID like it was absolute and final when it was anything but. I could call anyone presenting the call as their wife, dead father, bank or the local police station and nobody seemed to care. People are *slightly* more educated now, but trust in caller ID seems to be one of the cornerstones of the last 10 years of scamming people over the internet and phone. It's still completely unregulared and all the large tier 1 carriers of phone traffic do not enforce anything over caller ID, although it's starting to happen in other countries - particularly China and the USA.

The industry has been working on it for years though, with next year's shift away from analogue enabling much greater control, and various interim processes before that:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/crackdown-on-fake-number-fraud

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/information-for-industry/policy/tackling-scam-calls-and-texts