Gregory's Server|
9 comments
  @notsoloud @philip @acdha @Edent That's why I suggested including whether the call was in- or out-bound. The point is to give someone a clue so they can have an a-ha moment and go 'wait, something's wrong.'  @notsoloud @MisterMoo @philip @acdha @Edent Right, but "you called us" is hopefully hard to get past someone who did not in fact call the bank, but rather just received a call from them. @MisterMoo, assuming that each X represents exactly one digit, I'd find that phone no. extremely suspicious as it's too short; and the only 3-digit area code which I can think of is 020. @lp0_on_fire @MisterMoo that is a US format phone number which can never start with 1 or 0. 020 in the UK is a London number. @darrenmoffat @lp0_on_fire It was just an example. Presumably it can be modified for telephone numbers across the world.  @philip @Edent yes - it’s a brutally hard problem because banks have to assume some customers will have lost phones/ID, be confused, etc. and the fraud industry is large enough to have decent IT, training, etc. I think expecting the phone companies to do more is the future. I’d bet a lot of people would use an international/VoIP block and they could setup a system where you can’t reset passwords, transfer, change your address, etc. except by starting the call in their app. |
@acdha @Edent Fair, there’ll never be perfect technical solutions to these human problems, just trying to imagine what we might do better.
Could the banking app use the phone’s phone API to check whether the call is being made on that device, and then at least show something like “You are talking to us on THIS PHONE” vs “You are talking to us ON A DIFFERENT PHONE THAN THIS ONE”?
Again, not perfect, but maybe that would help some number fewer people get scammed.