Retail News CRM

Tag: scammers

  • Phone scammers will soon lose a major advantage

    Phone scammers will soon lose a major advantage

    The Federal Communications Commission is taking aim at a key loophole that helps robocallers dodge detection systems meant to protect consumers. If you’re still getting bombarded with scam calls on your phone, this gap involving older network technology is a likely contributor. The FCC wants to ensure calls maintain their digital fingerprints even when passing through these older networks.  

    Modern phone calls over internet (IP) networks benefit from STIR/SHAKEN, a system the FCC champions for tracking, blocking, and warning about bad calls. It acts like a digital fingerprint to verify caller ID isn’t faked or “spoofed”. It’s crucial for spotting malicious calls before they potentially trick someone.  

    The problem is that when calls travel — even partially, through older, non-IP phone lines (think traditional landlines) — this STIR/SHAKEN verification often gets lost due to technical limitations of those networks. Scammers know this and actively exploit it by routing calls through these pathways, effectively erasing the digital proof of origin. This makes their illegal calls much harder for carriers to identify and block.  

    Patching the network hole

    The FCC’s new proposal directly targets this non-IP loophole. For the last four years, providers using these older networks faced delayed deadlines for implementing call authentication required by the TRACED Act. The FCC now wants to end these delays and get authentication solutions deployed.  

    This initiative stems from the TRACED Act, which is legislation designed specifically to bolster the fight against the flood of illegal robocalls. While STIR/SHAKEN on IP networks has certainly made a dent, billions are still lost annually to frequent phone scams related to everything from fake auto warranties to government impersonations, seriously damaging consumer trust. Addressing specific vulnerabilities like the non-IP gap is essential.

    Shutting down this specific loophole won’t magically stop all robocalls overnight, but it’s a necessary technical fix in the ongoing battle. Ensuring calls retain authentication across different network types makes it tougher for scammers to operate anonymously and hide their tracks. Ultimately, closing this gap should lead to fewer fraudulent calls getting through to consumers and hopefully increase the reliability of caller ID.

  • Three times more scammed via bank transactions than Bitcoin payments in Australia

    Three times more scammed via bank transactions than Bitcoin payments in Australia

    Bitcoin remains the most popular cryptocurrency playing a role as an investment vehicle and also a payment medium. However, scammers are exploring the payment aspect to defraud victims resulting in losses of millions of dollars.

    According to data compiled by cryptocurrency trading simulator Crypto Parrot, Australians lost an equivalent of AUD 26.65 million in scams where Bitcoin was the payment method in 2020. Despite Bitcoin being a new payment method, the fraud linked to the cryptocurrency ranked second behind banks.

    Scams involving bank transactions amounted to AUD 97.65 million, which is at least 3.7 times more than the amount lost in bitcoin payments scams. Other unspecified payment methods ranked third at AUD 24.17 million while cash ranked fourth at AUD 8.57 million. Credit cards emerged fifth at AUD 8.1 million.

    Elsewhere in terms of reported scams in 2020, payments methods not provided ranked top at 190,959 cases, followed by banks at 8,215. Credit cards rank third at 6,267 cases, followed by PayPal at 2,761. Other payment methods ranked fifth at 2,680 cases. Bitcoin cases emerged sixth at  1,985.

    The coronavirus health crisis partly played a role in Bitcoin being used as a payment method for scams in Australia.

    According to the research report: “Amid the pandemic, most people spend more time online on social media platforms, which became perfect grounds for targeting potential victims. Notably, victims deployed social media to share their referral codes with friends and contacts, bringing more people into the group involving the fake investment scheme. Overall, social media is an excellent tool for scammers who understand most people face the fear of missing out.”

    Furthermore, Bitcoin’s underlying nature of being decentralized and anonymous contributed to the crypto being utilized as a payment method in scams. Notably, this status means that the beneficiaries cannot be traced easily.

  • Online reviews are terrible and useless

    Online reviews are terrible and useless

    Online reviews sound good in theory. In practice, however, they don’t work so well. Reviews were initially important as proxies of trust for e-commerce businesses, but they have now well and truly spilled over to bricks-and-mortar businesses, where the weakness of the review system is being amplified as some consumers have figured out how to weaponize it.

    The general idea is that users provide their personal and honest feedback and other users are able to make more informed choices (like avoiding scammers). Even the business owner can use “learnings” to improve the business.

    It just doesn’t work.

    Amazon is plagued by fake reviews and trolls. In the book space, for instance, small groups and even bots target specific authors over spurious disagreements the trolls may have, and downvote their books accordingly so that they never appear in algorithmically-driven searches.

    On AirBnB and Uber, providers and users review each other. Another great idea, but in practice, since no one can afford to be given a 1-star review (the host wouldn’t get guests and the guest wouldn’t get accommodation) – the unspoken rule is that everyone gives each other 5-star reviews all the time. A 4-star review should set alarm bells ringing.

    Reviews are not a fair representation of the business, because reviewers have suspect motives, are unqualified, unreliable and the process is flawed and without proper context.

    The problem with online reviews

    Here are just a few of the drawbacks with online reviews, as they currently exist:

    • The motive of the reviewer is not always apparent, and neither is it always pure. Even positive reviews may have little to do with the actual service experience, and people who are motivated to review, often have an axe to grind.

    • Those who prefer not to review products and services are often bombarded by reminder emails until they relent, only to give a less than well-thought-through review long after the fact.

    • You usually only get one side of the story in a review.

    • Most people doing the reviewing have zero insight into the business’s operations, and criticisms and expectations are often unrealistic. Negative reviews are not merely limited to articulating a personal negative experience, but often are about perceptions of staffing levels, time, production, etc.

    • Compulsive reviewers operate under the misguided belief they are helping other consumers, but they are usually on a power trip.

    • Is ANY consumer really equipped to judge and compare Bunnings to McDonald’s?

    • Is the person’s subjective experience actually useful? Does the fact that a person doesn’t like a burger mean no one else will? Or vice versa?

    • A business would need to have thousands of reviews across different times, different experiences and different contexts for the sample to be considered statistically relevant. I suspect the average small business would rarely reach this sample size. Few real world, independent retail businesses boast sufficient reviews, so the results are invariably skewed. It takes more than a hundred or so reviews for the law of averages to apply, but whether a rating is valid or not does not deter the reviewing platform, with most of them showing reviews after a handful has been received.

    • Different people have different standards – what one reviewer considers value for money, another will consider expensive another to cheap. That is, the reviewer does not necessarily reflect the market that the operator seeks to attract.

    • Generally speaking, our culture – and it is amplified in the online space – has a tendency to reward victimhood.

    • It is impossible for different people with different expectations to apply the same standard. Can you have a 5-star experience at a 3-star motel, and is the average punter equipped to make that distinction?

    Any run-of-the mill establishment gets reviewed as well, whether they like it or not. If you want to exist on Google Maps, you get Google Reviews. TripAdvisor has excellent SEO juice, so any business reviews will come up with your own listing at all times. If you want to keep a recent poor review off the top of your results, it will set you back $70 per month to feature a good review instead.

    What now?

    Review results are statistically and psychologically unreliable, but there is no way of avoiding them. They are here to stay, flawed or not.

    Retailers should learn how to play the reviewing game, and the options are to (a) ignore and (b) embrace or (c) fight.

    Our strategy has been:

    1. Avoid channels where the trolls feed in vast numbers (Facebook: reviews disabled; Twitter: no account; Instagram: no account).

    2. On Google and Tripadvisor, respond to every review positive or negative to at least put both sides of the story out there.

    3. Resist seeking positive reviews or attempt to ‘game’ the reviews and don’t display/promote any reviews, even positive ones.

    4. Learn what you can from a review as objectively as possible – in some instances, reviews are simply the old “world of mouth” now made visible and there is a benefit in knowing what is being said.

    In the early days of e-commerce, when consumers were still sceptical, a 5-star review simply meant the product was as advertised and arrived when promised.

    Any scammer who wanted to take money without sending the goods wouldn’t last long. These trust issues are not as prevalent, and there are different mechanisms to root out the bad apples today.

    Businesses – and the delivery of customer experience – are too complex to be reduced to a simple star system or a subjective comment.

    Maybe that is an opportunity for an entrepreneur.