But in those moments of absolute panic, you’re rushing. People barely read these messages on a good day, but when you’ve been told seconds make the difference, you might just click continue, or just not read it all together.
Only if the customer reads it, then says they’re uncomfortable on the phone, then the scammer might try and work their way around it.
I would bet many just don’t read it out of panic.
It’s technically quite different. Like I built up a picture of how things have changed over the years, the fundamentals are the same, but the technology has changed.
The reason banks are liable to begin with is because of the core function of a bank.
They hold your money for you, and only you, and you can withdraw it when you wish.
In this scenario, a bank has accepted an instruction from somebody else to withdraw your money, and you didn’t want that money withdrawing. The instruction didn’t originate with you. The bank tried to verify it was you who requested this withdrawal, but like I mentioned earlier, they compromise and they use a method they know doesn’t work 100% of the time, but they accept that the convenience is worth the risk.
Modern airports with modern passports have very little mistaken identities. All I’m saying is some solutions exist, and for the ones that don’t yet - don’t you think the banks should be working on them?
Why should the customer accept the responsibility, when the root problem is a bank not being able to verify their own customers properly?