These make analogies make no sense. The author is a self-described expert in fraud and security. It's totally reasonable to ask why he didn't use base-standard advice like, "Don't accept incoming calls," and "Don't give an incoming caller information about your card." This is basic security stuff we tell our parents and grandparents.

The analogy is more like, "Why would a car mechanic put a part in his car that he didn't choose himself?" or "Why would a doctor take pills some rando on the street gave him?" Most people would look at that car mechanic or doctor and think, "How good a mechanic or doctor are you?"

Yes, the expert was "manipulated", but only in the sense that when his "CU" called him, he didn't heed the initial advice experts give everyone -- hang up and call the number of the CU directly.

That said, I'm not piling on him. His article provides a great lesson about how easy it is to ignore one's own advice and knowledge and what the consequences can be. In this case, he /knew/ the right thing to do, but he also knew so much about how the systems worked that he ignored the base knowledge because he thought he "knew" what was happening. In a way, he manipulated himself.