Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjburgess | Hacker News Reader

The bank should offer some sort of e-learning training which a customer can click through that shows all the relevant sorts of scams and why their money is being held up. If the customer confirms that they believe they are not a victim of any of these scams (etc.); and they confirm their identity (etc.); then the money should go through.

The bank cannot decide on your behalf what you do with your money.

View on HN

The customer should confirm "I know this is a scam, release my money anyway, I take full responsibility". It's necessary to release the bank from any liability in this sort of situation. From the article it sounds like a scam.

As I understand it, UK banks (where this article is written) will soon be required[1] to reimburse victims of Authorised Push Payment fraud (some banks are signed up for a voluntary code at the moment) outside of "gross negligence" by the customer, so they can't just allow customers to waive liability. Making transfers now involves multi step questionnaires with big scary warnings about scams at every stage.

[1]: https://www.psr.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps233-...

> Making transfers now involves multi step questionnaires with big scary warnings about scams at every stage.

I keep screenshots of banking websites warning about scams and phishing attempts as well as screenshots of articles in online newspapers about phishing attacks being on the rise. It's pure insanity.

> I keep screenshots of banking websites

Then don't succumb to the banks pressure to switch to their mobile apps - which block screenshotting.

Here are more links and now downvoted discussion comment about this. There is indirect cost of protecting vulnerable and large part of the society needs to be ar this cost, if they want it or not:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41273554

I've read loads of stories where people will click through all these protections , tick the box saying they know it's not a scam and lose all their money. Then they go crying to the media complaining that the bank didn't refund them.

You can't solve human stupidity. There is always people who will trust others. And sometimes I wonder are those even actual scams. If you just lie honestly enough and then other party out of their full free will send money over. As it was such a nice person...

> You can't solve human stupidity. There is always people who will trust others.

True. Look how many trust banks...

My bank just introduced this. To transfer money you must now select a reason why and this is used to show a description of related scams and how to avoid them, e.g. how to spot fake invoices and investment scams. I'm happy they did since it will save some people, most likely elderly people, from being scammed.

You may be less happy if you get scammed regardless and bank claims you entered the wrong reason.

> The bank should offer some sort of e-learning training

People are stupid. Like, really stupid. The people who would get scammed even more so. This would not help, as these people would simply not listen or understand, no matter how patiently or simply you tried to explain to them.

> The bank cannot decide on your behalf what you do with your money.

Turns out they can (or rather, the government can decide on your behalf). What you're describing is libertarianism, which is not that popular generally speaking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com