#290565 by TerranceBoyce
Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:47 pm
http://www.theweek.co.uk/71103/should-online-fraud-compensation-be-curtailed?
What amazed me most about his comments was that he appeared to be quite ignorant about what he was talking about. I even had the horrible feeling that his attitude seemed to be fashioned more by the wishes of banking institutions than the victims of fraud.
Firstly he seems to believe that banks refund victims who have handed over their account passwords and log in details to criminals. Having spent my whole working life in banking and being particularly interested in all news reports of banking fraud, I think I can confidently assure him that under those circumstances banks don't normally make refunds.
I am pathologically security conscious and I don't use any security software on my pc. It won't necessarily provide protection against fraud and I have found it to create more problems than it solves. It is a greater risk to have security software and then consider that it provides total security against fraud - it won't.
Again he appears to be misinformed because I know that my bank require a mixture of letters and characters for my online password, indicating that the bank has the ability to ensure that customers don't use simple passwords.
Certainly in the UK when banks and insurance are involved it's often, in the recent past, been the start of scandals such as PPI, card insurance and other examples.
Basically banks don't pay out for fraud when it's not their fault and, when it is their fault, they aren't quick to own up, and it's not for customers to take out insurance for it.
In my next post I have a recent example of something that is becoming more and more common, when bank insiders are the cause of frauds against customers. This is a very uncomfortable issue for banks and it is a security issue that banks should deal with, not offload onto customers, or expect them to insure against it.
Obviously insider fraud has always been a threat for banks but, the way they function nowadays, makes them a lot more susceptible to it and personally I have concerns about how they deal with it when it does happen.
Apr 1, 2016
Last week the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, stirred up a hornet's nest by suggesting compensation for online fraud victims should be curtailed if people are lax with their internet security.
What amazed me most about his comments was that he appeared to be quite ignorant about what he was talking about. I even had the horrible feeling that his attitude seemed to be fashioned more by the wishes of banking institutions than the victims of fraud.
Firstly he seems to believe that banks refund victims who have handed over their account passwords and log in details to criminals. Having spent my whole working life in banking and being particularly interested in all news reports of banking fraud, I think I can confidently assure him that under those circumstances banks don't normally make refunds.
The system is not incentivising you to protect yourself. If someone said to you, 'if you’ve not updated your software I will give you half back', you would do it…...but few of us bother to keep the security software on our computers up-to-date.
I am pathologically security conscious and I don't use any security software on my pc. It won't necessarily provide protection against fraud and I have found it to create more problems than it solves. It is a greater risk to have security software and then consider that it provides total security against fraud - it won't.
A large reason for these losses is that most of us really don't protect ourselves very well online. The two most commonly used passwords are "123456" and "password", despite repeated warnings that we have to use stronger passwords.
Again he appears to be misinformed because I know that my bank require a mixture of letters and characters for my online password, indicating that the bank has the ability to ensure that customers don't use simple passwords.
"I think there will be cyber-insurance in the future, in the same way that home insurers will not pay out if you do not lock your front door," Commander Chris Greany, a senior fraud office, told The Times.
Certainly in the UK when banks and insurance are involved it's often, in the recent past, been the start of scandals such as PPI, card insurance and other examples.
Basically banks don't pay out for fraud when it's not their fault and, when it is their fault, they aren't quick to own up, and it's not for customers to take out insurance for it.
In my next post I have a recent example of something that is becoming more and more common, when bank insiders are the cause of frauds against customers. This is a very uncomfortable issue for banks and it is a security issue that banks should deal with, not offload onto customers, or expect them to insure against it.
Obviously insider fraud has always been a threat for banks but, the way they function nowadays, makes them a lot more susceptible to it and personally I have concerns about how they deal with it when it does happen.
CAR ADVERTS - If a car seller mentions escrow - he's scamming you Never ever for any reason pay anything until you have seen and inspected the vehicle
