![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Yes, there are differences across the scam cases that get reported. Overall though, the primary fault still lies with the scammer, not the victim.
She engaged an “online recovery” company to help her get the money back – but eventually found this operated in much the same way as the scammers.
Kind of naive of the reporter -- it almost certainly was the exact same scammers.
If you want some insight into the mentality of the victim and the sophistication of the operation, watch the movie that was recently on TV about the NZ woman who was duped via a romance scam into smuggling drugs out of Argentina some years ago.
All the things talked about in this thread appeared in the movie; the 'our secret', the refusal to see the truth, the rejection of family.
It's called 'the tender trap'.
Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21
frankv:
networkn:
I don't think it's the banks fault, though to be honest, I do think it's not unreasonable to consider whether some non-invasive safeguards could be implemented.
When I've done some unusual transaction such as sending money overseas or buying a car, the bank calls me and checks that it is actually me doing the transaction. This isn't something I've asked for, but I'm happy that it's there. Presumably, their banks would have done the same for the victims above?
But perhaps the banks & credit card providers could offer tiers of protection that the consumer can opt out of... if you're confident, scam-aware, and often transact large sums of money, you could opt out entirely. If you're an average person, you could opt out of the most onerous tier which might include:
- a friendly person to warn the victim about love scams and Nigerian princes when a dubious transaction is detected
- a cool-down period before money is sent overseas
- a notification to a nominated friend/family member about any dubious transactions
- a notification to a nominated friend/family member before opting out of this tier
Conversely, a caring person might assist their suggestible nana to opt-in to that layer.
So the scammer has to persuade their victim to go through some rigmarole, including warning someone caring, before they can access any money. The target still has full control over their money and finances, but with a bit of support.
If my bank did that sort of thing I would rapidly be looking for a new bank.
There are many many legitimate reasons to send money off shore. It is no ones business but the account holder what the money is used for or that it is sent.
Did you:
- Masturbate in front of a Webcam
- Receive a refund greater than the promised amount while being assisted by the person issuing the refund
gzt: I wonder if directing these people to a multiple choice page linking to compulsory 15 minute education videos would help much.
Probably not. This has been extensively studied in terms of the psychology of conspiracy theories, the only thing that's been found to be effective is time.
richms:Surely these people sending money overseas should be up on charges for lying to the bank about it?
If would probably look bad to prosecute the victim of a scam for being a victim of a scam.
gzt: The victim linked above is a lottery collect your winnings scam. I wonder if directing these people to a multiple choice page linking to compulsory 15 minute education videos would help much.
Did you:
- Win a lottery
- Find true love
- Want to help a Nigerian prince
- Need assistance with a computer virus
- Hear from a distant relative about an inheritance
A long time ago, when I was actively involved in fighting scams, I put together a self-test web page along those lines. It just had a few radio-button or checkbox questions
Each of these things had a mouse-over that explained why it was relevant, and I allocated a ballpark WAG probability of it actually being genuine. So maybe there's a 10% chance that a legitimate company might ask you to pay by Western Union, a 1% chance that something random out of Nigeria is legit, maybe there *is* a benefactor who wants to give money to some random person on the Internet and has chosen you (1 in a billion?), etc. Multiply the probabilities to see what likelihood there is that the deal is legit. I also had some random stats for comparison -- be left-handed, be a millionaire, be struck by lightning, be hit by a meteorite, etc. Pretty much any actual scam email resulted in something way out past 1 in a million.
frankv:A long time ago, when I was actively involved in fighting scams, I put together a self-test web page along those lines.
Is this still online? Sounds like an excellent resource for Netsafe...
neb:frankv:Is this still online? Sounds like an excellent resource for Netsafe...
A long time ago, when I was actively involved in fighting scams, I put together a self-test web page along those lines.
No, the website died long ago. I might still have the source somewhere, but it wouldn't be hard to knock up something similar using Cognito forms or similar.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |