I am not very knowledgeable about banking systems or fraud prevention and detection and that prevents me from offering a useful solution. Those offering solutions ought to display much more competence than I have in such matters otherwise why are they speaking?
I don’t see that my saying the proposition lacks the detail to be evaluated should be dismissed because I offer no alternative. My lack of alternative has no bearing on the strength or weakness of the proposal as expressed so far.
Arbitrarily deciding the banks must pay is no different to arbitrarily deciding the user must pay but it sure is more popular.
I have done a lot of problem management in computer systems, and that includes banking and fraud detection systems. You may not find a solution to solve something 100%, but getting to say 70% is usually surprisingly simple.
It just needs a will to do it, and mandating by law is usually a pretty good motivator for banks.
There is a solution to every problem.
For meaningful progress is the first challenge to reach agreement on the precise nature of the problem?
If ever there is agreement on the problem the solution should be self evident. The second challenge may be getting all to accept what is self evident.
As a generalisation and for illustration only, the climate change debate is a classic example. There are those who (1) don’t agree there is a problem or (2) accept there is a problem but do not want to take any action.
Hence for the current topic, is there even agreement on the problem we need to solve?
I’ll suggest the problem is that there is a lack of political capacity to improve the performance of our financial institutions and make it much harder for fraudsters to use those systems to their benefit. The relationship between political capacity and financial institutions should be at the centre of the discussion.
Whether the UK has delivered a solution, part solution, or window dressing, it’s at least an acknowledgement of why there is a problem and hence where the solution needs to come from.
If you think that, then you haven’t even got past the first step in problem solving.
Define the problem. And then if you have defined the problem, devise and evaluate possible solutions.
EG It’s now raining outside and I don’t need to get wet. What to do while having a fresh coffee? Complain about the unreliable weather forecast or seek further advice on problem solving. Fortunately it’s stopped raining and the coffee cup is empty. The solution to the problem is self evident.
P.S.
The same can be said about banks etc enabling dodgy customers to receive payments - money obtained by misrepresentation, deceit and fraud.
Come let us work together and square the circle. More seriously, there are problems in the realm of politics and human behaviour that we have been trying to solve for thousands of years and made little or no progress. What is the solution to despots invading their neighbours?
There seems to be pretty good agreement about the nature of the problem of sustained fusion power but despite huge motivation the solution evades us after 50 years or more. It may be do-able, we will know when we do it. Until then we don’t know.
At the broad level I believe there is: to substantially reduce the losses due to APPs caused by scammers in a way that does not generate other problems that are as bad or worse.
Yes. There is a catch though. All through this thread is the assumption that given enough pressure banks will solve the problem without worse side effects. That is yet to be demonstrated.
It annoys me @mark_m when posters selectively omit parts of someone else’s post and then make fun of the topic. I am pretty sure victims of scammers do not share your humour.
Have been through the hoops of setting up banking services as a PL, of being a party to a not for profit and of a strata title.
It would seem that for one croup of customers the financial institutions are more than capable of ensuring the true identity and ‘bone fides’ of a business. Credit card payment facilities have in the past added more checks and balances. Some will suggest the banks now fall over themselves to add customers. Perhaps it is not so?
The challenge is for the someones who have the responsibility to deliver an easy to use system that one can use to verify the recipient is legitimately delivering the business, products/services based on the payment details they have provided.
That the most frequent victims are more likely the least financially sophisticated of the community may go someway to explaining the lack of interest elsewhere. Should we differ in where there are side effects?
Who decides which transactions are to be reversed and how do they decide? Where do you draw the line between payment for a non-existent good or service and change of mind over those that might be of questionable value? Consider the situation where the good is real and is delivered but the price is excessive for what it does - take the example of the Pete Evens magic machine and detox foot wraps.
To that I will add the system may need to distinguish between:
Victim A says “I don’t care if he/she is a scallywag I still love them, they can have the money”
Victim B says “Ever since he/she took up with C I hate them and I want my money back and I don’t love them any more”
Hi all,
Thanks for the discussion. It was great to hear all the different viewpoints on this issue, and very interesting to compare this to what’s happening in the UK to potential things we could try here. It’s clearly an important issue and one that people care about.
While the discussion or interest in this area is by no means over, I think we are in danger of circling around the same points in the short term and so we have decided to close this topic for now. I know there’s be several of my colleagues at CHOICE who will no doubt take interest in considering everything that has been mentioned here.
It’s likely reopen this at a later date, so make sure you check your notification setting if you’d like an email for new replies to the topic. If anyone has any follow up questions, please get in touch via DM.
