1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Don't refund online fraud victims, Met chief tells banks

Discussion in 'Personal' started by FrankWolley, Mar 24, 2016.

  1. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    Does he have a point? Or is he simply trying to shift the blame from the criminal to the victim?

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/dont-refund-online-victims-met-chief-tells-banks

    Britain’s most senior police officer has been accused of attempting to shift blame on to victims of online fraud after he suggested consumers should not be refunded by banks if they fail to protect themselves from cybercrime.

    Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said customers who had fallen foul of online fraudsters were being “rewarded for bad behaviour” instead of incentivised to update anti-virus software and improve passwords.

    His comments in the Times come as police brace themselves for an expected surge in overall crime figures when cybercrime estimates are included in official statistics for the first time in July.

    Mind you, could be the thin end of the wedge? In future will we hear: 'sorry, we won't investigate your burglary as you live in a post code which is notorious for crime...You should move to somewhere else...' and 'Your car was stolen, well what do you expect if you actually parked it anywhere but your garage...?'
     
  2. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    He seems confused about what 'bad behaviour' is... always a good sign in a police officer.

    Oh wait, he's a Sir... oh Sir!... yeah so disconnected from reality.
     
  3. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    There's a good comment made below the article by a Steve Austin:

    "I am disabled; quite simply put, online banking is a major plus for me. I use anti virus, anti spyware and anti malware software, some provided as part of my package by my ISP, some by my bank and the rest by myself; I have tested all of this software to ensure crosscompatibility, to the extent that I can. I never divulge my passwords for anything, never allow anyone else to use my bank card or to have any other kind of access to my account. If someone wants cash from me then they just have to wait until I can arrange to get to a cash machine, or take me there themselves! Despite all of the above, in 2013 I found an unauthorised transaction on my current account related to an online purchase I had recently made (a thief had found a way to buy from the same retailer, using my card information) To their credit, the retailer immediately refunded me without question or debate but neither they nor the police seemed to be interested in pursuing this in any official capacity. What the 'Take responsibility for your selves' lobby don't seem to understand, or want to understand, is that they are asking the average M O t P to put themselves up against criminals who often display at least a degree level of computer skill, criminals who make it their business to stay right up to the minute, even second, in terms of computer skills and knowledge. As for Mr Hogan-Howe, all his comments achieve is to reveal the depth of his own ignorance."

    Very much to the point, I'd say...
     
    Middlemarch and harsh-but-fair like this.
  4. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    I was a victim earlier this week - my bank said originally that they wouldn't help; after I contacted the police and Financial Conduct Authority, suddenly, my bank was happy to look into the matter and refund the money. No interest in pursuing.....
     
  5. Flere-Imsaho

    Flere-Imsaho Star commenter

    Banks promised no quibble refunds when people began banking electronically because they wanted people to use it. They still do - it's why your credit card usually has better protection than a debit card. That's not going to change.
     
    sabrinakat likes this.
  6. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    "rewarded for bad behaviour"

    How does he think they are rewarded exactly?
     
  7. Didactylos4

    Didactylos4 Star commenter

    Although the message was badly phrased I think I can see where they were coming from.
    I recently got asked to sort out a computer that was riddled with malware and all sorts of nasties including at least two keyloggers.
    The owner/user of said computer had no updated protection systems (it had a paid-for system that had lapsed a year previously), insisted on opening and activating all sorts of dubious e-mails on the basis that "it was up to his ISP and e-mail provider to protect" him and although had been refunded twice for money fraudulently taken from him, had now been told that his latest claim had been rejected because he had been "negligent"

    I couldn't help agreeing with that rejection especially as he expected me to a) fix his computer for free and b)refused to allow me to install some free protection.
    Needless to say I (somewhat impolitely) suggested that he consulted professionals in various fields about his problems. :mad:

    Some people do need to suffer in order to learn and others may never do so.
    :rolleyes:
     
  8. Vladimir

    Vladimir Senior commenter

    Ha ha! In a 'progressive' society, the victim is always the criminal because of (yawn!) Human Rights.
     
  9. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    Yes! The man's a numpty.
     
    needabreak and wanet like this.
  10. minnie me

    minnie me Star commenter

    A few years ago my card was rejected in two shops. I was about to go on holiday so phoned my bank to order a new one - assumed damage to the current one. I was told that my card had been reported lost / stolen and cancelled. During the course of the conversation I was asked to confirm a number of transactions - one was to the retailer ( Tessuti ) for £500 of which I had no knowledge. It transpired that someone had been conducting this transaction whilst I had been sitting in M and S with friends having coffee. The bank was superb and refunded the money. It would not tell me any details relaying to this fraud though.
     
    needabreak likes this.
  11. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Interesting, since I thought the banks willingness to reimburse misappropriated funds was part of their reassurance that they took fraud seriously and would not let the threat of it affect the customers trust in using the banking facility.
     
  12. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    Indeed. I also remember that when 'chip and pin' came in, they reassured all those of us who worried about it that it would be 'more safe' than previous systems. I think it took the fraudsters about ten minutes to crack it.
     
  13. mandylifeboats

    mandylifeboats Occasional commenter

    Barclaycard contacted us last week to say our card had been cloned and used for transactions in the US, none of which we are liable for.
    They have no idea where the cloning could have taken place so can't see they'd be able to blame us for failure to protect ourselves from fraud.
    Had it been online, however, maybe I could sue McAfee, AVG et al for failing to protect my details. Isn't that the point of them?
     
  14. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    I had a similar thing a few years ago, it is why I now know of the existence of Kooskia Idaho where I didn't go one afternoon to buy jewellery.

    I tracked it back to a garage where I bought fuel from that I didn't normally use and where a member of staff had been taken on for a short time. Apparently it is a regular if not common way of committing fraud, the short-term member of staff uses some kind of scanner underneath the legitimate card machine and leaves once they have enough details to sell on.
     
  15. marymoocow

    marymoocow Star commenter

    I once had over £3k stolen, spent on lots of holidays. This was before online shopping was really big and have never used my card for online shopping, so it had to be a shop assistant that used my details in some way. I rang the bank and they refunded it. Was a scary time though.
     
  16. Yoda-

    Yoda- Lead commenter

    So the Met Chief wants you not only to be a victim, but also pay for the privilege. Thanks for that. Policing by putting the financial boot into fraud victims. An interesting new technique.

    Online banking is based on the protection from fraud guarantee. Without it people may well decide to go back to King cash. This the banks do not want.

    images-2.jpg
     
    needabreak likes this.
  17. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Looking at the bigger picture, consumers have been steered to use card payments and online transactions to the extent that it's becoming more difficult all the time to pay for things as we did before the introduction of credit and debit cards in the way we previously did.

    Shops and banks love it, as it's more efficient than dealing with cheques and cash, and safer for them too, since there are no cheques to bounce or counterfeit currency to worry about. The government loves it because it enables individuals to be tracked for security purposes.

    It's convenient for consumers, but they haven't been the driving force behind card payments or online shopping. The driving force is saving money and making more profit. Those who force it on us have to be responsible when things go wrong. It can't be beyond the wit of man to devise schemes by which it's nigh on impossible to hack bank accounts or buy stuff with money that ain't yours.

    Banks would introduce it soon enough if the cost benefit was better than coughing up for fraudulent bank transactions. This copper has got to be on another planet.
     
    colpee and needabreak like this.
  18. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    I agree; the current transaction system is fundamentally flawed and it is a remarkably easy target for thieves. Fraudulent activities cost millions, but if the banks can insure themselves against it and pass on the costs to the customer there is no real incentive to change. As with most crime, it is the less well off and vulnerable who not only suffer disproportionately but are regularly fobbed off with a 'it's your own fault' stance by banks.
    The foolish Mr Plod is on the wrong track completely; he should be aiming his criticism at the remarkably well off banking executives who have been too complacent with other peoples' money for too long.
     
    FrankWolley likes this.

Share This Page