Confused over 159 number

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

eskbanker said:

RolandTheSquirrel said:

Martin is doing a lot of talking about 159 and how it can't be spoofed or impersonated compared to normal numbers, but doesn't explain why. 
Does this mean it's no longer safe to use the numbers typically on the back of your debit card - the number which banks say you must always call and no other number? 
It seems strange that if these numbers can be spoofed or impersonated then why do banks use them? Why not use something more secure?
Or is 159 only meant to be called after a suspected scam call? Does it identify the last number that rung you somehow? 
I'm very suspicious calling a number which is third party to contact my bank when my bank itself tells me to only call them on the number on the back of my debit card.

Surely the bulk of the dialogue about spoofing relates to inbound calls that you receive, i.e. don't believe that a call or text is from your bank purely on the basis that the number looks right?

I'm not aware of any issue relating to outbound calls that you make, other than the standard warning not to fall for fake dial tones after receiving calls from fraudsters on landlines, so provided you're sure there's no active call still in progress, there's no issue calling 159 or the number on the back of a card?

Looking at the website linked above, it does make the confusing statement "Unlike many long-form numbers, 159 cannot be spoofed or impersonated". I don't think there is any suggestion that incoming calls from banks will use 159 as their caller ID. So the fact scammers cannot use it would appear irrelevant.

To me, this initiative just looks like a matter of convenience, so that those having to deal with these situations out of the blue don't have to go digging around in their wallets. An alternative convenience is to save the long form number as a contact in your phone (with the drawback that you'd need to do this for each bank).

I'd need a bigger phone.

I've no idea if it is a real risk, or one I'm just making up, but might it be possible that saving bank's numbers as phone contacts exposes the user to the (small, possible) risk that the contact(s) have been manipulated and a scammer's number substituted for the bank's real one?

No matter how careless you are with the physical phone, and/or jailbreak it/downoad dodgy apps, dialling 159 would presumably allow you to be more confident you are speaking to your bank, rather than using a compromised saved contact which is now directing you to scams-r-us.

(Similar to the advice to always type the online banking address in full, not relying on google search results to take you to the right site)

Perhaps your contacts should not be treated as sacred. But if the phone has been compromised to the extent your contacts can be edited by the scammer, then a malicious phone app could presumably be installed to redirect you to scams-r-us when you enter 159.

Thinking about when I'm most vulnerable, it's probably while I am abroad and have limited resources to sort out any problems. If I understand correctly, I would not be able to use 159 in that situation anyway, so perhaps the best I can do is hope I have the relevant bank card in my possession at the time.