The only difference from the check fraud is this: since the fraudsters — having the password and OTP — are indistinguishable from you, the bank may not return your money (out of his pocket). And since the money was already cashed out, there's nowhere to get it back from. Bottom line, you will eat the damage.
That is also 'indistinguishable from you', check is valid and has your signature.
In both cases you have to hope that funds can be clawed back.
The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back and it would have been difficult if he could not prove checks as fraud.
I would also rate difficulty of grabbing otp and password as more difficult then intercepting an envelope. (outside cases where people willfully give them away to 'tech support'... in which case they might as well write a blank check)
Police already being aware of 30+ cases in author's context does say its widespread issue even for savvy persons. I could fall victim by simply mailing a check, whereas I can't imagine having my bank account hacked.
I've pointed out the difference: banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. They don't understand account takeovers, as these are much more complicated. They are much more likely to side with you on a case they understand, and reinstate you, and you need them to side with you if you want your money back.
There even may be a law that in the case of check fraud, the customer should be made whole. I seriously doubt there is such a law in the cases of email takeover.
> The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back
As opposed to the cases where it took people much longer and they did NOT get their funds back?
In Europe, banks, police, and courts do understand account takeovers. They have roughly the same consequences (a lot of faffing around with the bank), but are much harder to pull off than check fraud. I really don't see a downside.
> banks, police, and courts understand check fraud.
How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check?
You fail to realise same issue is in both cases.
Same procedures work in both cases.
If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments.
They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.
> If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments.
The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so.
You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.
> The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities.
Are you basing this on something other then assumptions?
If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary.
Why so little faith in authorities?
> You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things
What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives.
> stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not
You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...)
As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help.
You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer:
> They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.
So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome?
> more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives
You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this.
> and easy to set up on your phone
A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion?
Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.
> So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome?
Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment.
What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds.
If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance.
Objective facts/investigation.
Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw)
> Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank...
I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token)
You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions.
You will get support.
Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism
And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.
Mentioning "privilege" is not a personal attack (I do hate that trend). I'm pointing out that just because you yourself went to the police and they believed and helped you, this is not universal.
You keep insisting things like "You will get support", which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid.
I'm glad things worked out for you. I'm glad your country seems to have societal integrity where you can count on the system working. Just please stop extrapolating as if its a universal experience.
> which definitely do not apply universally. I characterized it as gaslighting, as you're basically telling people who don't trust the system that their concerns are invalid.
I mean... this is quite a stretch... objectively if you get mugged you do go to the police, there's nothing else that can help you. Saying you should have some faith is not gaslighting as you're so keen on saying. Same as you saying that people should have no faith in police is also not gaslighting.
Thread has gone one pretty long and honestly there's no point to stretch it further, best of luck.
You are not saying "if you are mugged you should go to the police, they will probably help (even if you do not think they will)".
Rather you are saying the equivalent of "you should not be concerned about getting mugged, because if you are the police will help".
Apparently you have never had to suffer bureaucratic incompetence or even bureaucratic maliciousness. As I've said, I'm glad for you but your experience is certainly not universal.
File a police report, same as in article with washed /rewritten check...
Then figure out how you got compromised so it doesnt happen again.