Antiphishing tactic
Apr. 25th, 2006 10:21 amWhy don't banks (PayPal, EBay, Amazon, whoever) conduct antiphishing operations? Gather up the URLs sent in by your customers, fill out the forms with tagged information, wait for attempted use of the info, and press charges in the relevant jurisdiction.
(Yeah, it's hard and relatively expensive and besides, banks make money from fraud. But besides that?)
(Yeah, it's hard and relatively expensive and besides, banks make money from fraud. But besides that?)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-25 02:40 pm (UTC)Follow the money
Date: 2006-04-25 02:57 pm (UTC)Likewise, phishers have essentially no money. Taking them down does not achieve financial gain; no lawsuit will do more than recoup losses, given that the phishers' money comes from pools the banks draw from in the first place. Suing them achieves no net financial gain.
Security will not be considered the bank's problem, unless we achieve legislation to make it expensive for them.
Re: Follow the money
Date: 2006-04-25 03:56 pm (UTC)In the long term semi-successful pursuit might be cheaper than insuring against loss. It also ought to have less tangible benefits. It has to be deleterious to PayPal's image that 99% of emails nominally from them are scams.
Re: Follow the money
Date: 2006-04-25 10:51 pm (UTC)Might, might not. I notice that many retail stores are no longer bothering to collect signatures for credit card use. I presume that they finally realized that the cost of collecting the signature was far greater than the miniscule benefit provided.