h a l f b a k e r yBite me.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
People get scammed out of money online in a variety of clever ways - they will get contacted via email, Facebook messenger, Twitter, etc., by a scammer pretending to be a Nigerian prince, a friend in trouble abroad, the person they just sold something to on eBay, etc. - the combinations are endless.
The problem with all these scams is that at the end of each of these communications is a real scammer, keen to take your money.
My solution to this is to have banks, financial regulators, etc. send out more scam communications than the actual scammers. However, if you respond to one of these scam communications you would be redirected to a website saying "That was a fake scam - you could have lost money!" and containing educational material on how the scam would have worked.
The TV commercial version.
Decoy_20scam_20commercials
[doctorremulac3, Jul 03 2019]
[link]
|
| |
What happens when the "real" fake scammers start using a similar tactic? ie you are redirected to a site that states: "That was a fake scam - you could have lost money!" and containing educational material on how the scam would have worked, along with a contact phone number, if you have any worries or confusion with a very re-assuring voice on the other end who offers to review your security details - just to put your mind at ease. |
|
| |
Scammers are heartless, amoral, greedy, untrustworthy and contemptible; they lie to you, take your money, and give nothing in return. |
|
| |
Oh, no, sorry, that's bankers. So what's the difference ? |
|
| |
Not much - but the serious answer is that the difference is that it is possible (although sometimes hard) to influence banks' behaviour with legislation. So, if banks were made more liable for the cost to their customers of the scams which are enabled by the banks' weak security controls, they would do more about it. |
|
| |
A free online course on cyber crime, sponsored by your
bank. |
|
| |
I thought that the rationale for this would be that as people
routinely ignore communications from their banks, they
would quickly get into the habit of ignoring bank- and
scammer-initiated scams alike. |
|
| |
The place I currently work for does exactly this -
every couple of weeks, they send out increasingly
sophisticated scam emails to staff, with the
equivalent of an
HR-sanctioned Rick-Roll at the other end pointing out
all the clues you should have noticed in the email
body that suggest a scam attempt. |
|
| |
@zen_tom my work does that too -- if someone fails the test
and clicks on a faux-phishing email they are required to re-
take the incredibly boring security orientation course (a 20-
minute slideshow/quiz)... |
|
| |
that sounds Hideously, Scarily Boring Can you imagine? We might
even work at the same place. |
|
| |
It's a good use of boring presentation techniques if it incentivises people to learn about staying secure.
Also, *do* you both work at the same place? |
|
| |