UK Banks Say Phishing Victims May Be On Their Own
from the how-nice-of-them dept
It looks like some banks in the UK have decided that they're tired of all this phishing scam nonsense and they don't want the responsibility to fall on them. So, while they'll look at things on a case-by-case basis, they don't plan to reimburse the victims of phishing scams. It's understandable that they don't want to be held responsible, but they should take a more proactive approach to stopping phishing scams than simply telling the victims "too bad."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They do
"We will never send emails that ask for confidential information or security details. If you get such an email, please delete it immediately without responding." or
"[organization] will never ask you for your memorable data or pass number in an e-mail. Never disclose this information to anyone."
etc, when you log in for online banking.
Between sheer common sense and those warnings, I certainly don't see why a bank should have to foot the bill for stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They do
Now, if you want a related tangent, you can blame it on people's ignorance of their browsers. I'm beginning to suspect that people don't pay attention to their status bars when mousing-over a link - for example, both mozilla and thunderbird display the destination URL in the status bar. If they suppress it being displayed (mostly javascript on websites at fault here), I worry; if it's not the same as the text for the URL, I flatly don't click on it. Of course, you have to take into account that many people wouldn't have the same experience/know-how to determine when the difference is significant (replacing domain-name with IP#? Relying on http-auth `@' symbol to confuse people?) or not. Hence maybe more effort should be put into browser-use awareness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:UK Banks Say Phishing Victims May Be On Their O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phishing
If someone got phished upon and another person - believing to earn a transfer commission of 8% - then
who is to blame?
Can anyone eventually expect to be reimbursed for any
damage or loss ?
Awaiting your reply I remain
with best wishes of vigilance: Knut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]