Bank Fraud and Journalistic Gullibility

Generally speaking, I have a very, very low opinion of newspapers and journalists. I suspect that our supposed desire for 24 hour a day news may be to blame, but the fact is they love to create stories out of nothing, playing on our fears and our preconceptions. Also generalising, I used to think of the Times and the Guardian as being at least reasonably respectable newspapers, where at least some semblance of sensible reporting was taking place. I admit, I may have been a bit naive here.

In yesterday’s Guardian, page 6 and most of page 7 were taken up by an article titled “Do you want Lloyds or HSBC? Account details for sale online” (online version of article). This is a well timed article to play on our fears, both over the missing 25 million HMRC records and our fears about identity theft / online fraudsters emptying our accounts.

Now, I am not for one second trying to say there is no risk or that people do not have their bank accounts hacked and all their money stolen. I just suspect it is a lesser threat to the “average” person than the newspapers make out. In this article, Robert Booth begins with:

It took just 19 hours from first contact with the anonymous Russian fraudster until he collected my $240 (£116.50) payment from a local “drop”.

And then continues, sometimes in the manner of an airport spy novel, to detail how in a short period of time he has found dozens of (mostly Russian) criminal organisations who are selling bank account details for a pittance. It is scary reading. Robert Booth writes about how these “Internet Banking Fraud communities” steal accounts and circulate the details over “untraceable” internet messaging applications like ICQ. (Really, he does write this). He continues writing about his adventures:

The encounter with the anonymous Russian in an internet chatroom was one of scores like it going on at the time. In a separate private message, another vendor promised: “I will give you HSBC full info with 26k Pounds…for $500…When can you wire money?”

The whole (longish) article is like this. There are quotes from people at SOCA, security consultants and the like. All talk about how dangerous the internet is and add to this image of the “Internet bank fraud community” sitting around trading details and earning fortunes as a result:

The community has developed a high level of sophistication so that trusted parties can trade efficiently. In one posting on a forum selling card details a fraudster reports to the rest of the community on the “review” he has conducted of a new entrant to the market.

He has tested his speed of response and accuracy of information supplied and marks him out of 10 for communication, timing and product. “Total: 9/10 nice score,” he concludes and awards the status of “trial vendor”.

Many vendors offer discounts for bulk buyers and even display a replacement policy. If the account details do not work most vendors will replace the data with a different lead. SOCA, which has responsibility for fighting organised internet fraud, has set up a series of cross-border alliances to tackle the problem, but declined to comment on our findings.

Wow. Lock up your bank accounts now! This is scary stuff!

However, you can breathe a sigh of relief gentle reader because, largely, this is a case of a journalist who has fallen for a pretty basic scam. Yes, there is fraud going on here, but the victim isn’t the innocent bank account holder. A simple application of logic (counts most journalists out then) to the basic premise hints at something not being as it seems.

Imagine this, you are a techno-savvy criminal who has gone to all the trouble to acquire account details which will allow you to empty £26,000 from a strangers account. You have done this without anyone knowing or being able to trace it was you. Would you then sit on the account details until another complete stranger got in touch with you and sent you US$500?

What sane criminal is going to turn down the £26,000 (US$52,000) and take one hundredth of that instead. The risk to the cyber-crook remain, he has just given up 99% of his potential monetary gain. In fact, if anything, his risks have escalated significantly because he now has to contend with police sting operations.

It is madness to suggest that these account details are really being sold online for such pitiful sums of money. Cyber criminals who hack into bank accounts will either empty them there and then, or use them for their own ends. Selling the details on to random internet strangers is completely stupid.

Just to underscore my point, the Guardian article finishes with this bit of reassurance:

As sobering as the trade in stolen identities has become, there was a crumb of comfort last night for the Halifax account holder whose details the Russian fraudster was peddling. Twelve hours after the payment had been withdrawn from a Siberian wire office, the Guardian was still waiting for the promised bank details.

So, in reality, I suspect this is the more common type of fraud. People who want to be cyber-criminals but lack the technical knowledge to manage it are being conned by other cyber-criminals who at least have the brains to pretend to be able to do something. The best frauds work by playing on the victim’s greed and willingness to commit criminal acts – I mean if someone is conned into paying £116.50 for illegally gained bank details, who can they complain to?

A bit more Techno-babble

T_W’s last post linked to a salient post which showed charts of Internet traffic for certain phrases, with a fascinating plunge for a fortnight in early November. He did post this yesterday.

I looked at Technorati’s authority for salient. He wasn’t credited with a visible recent link from our blog – despite getting a clear link from us IN THE MAIN TEXT, rather than the sidebar and despite him having made comments, which should have counted as links because we strip the nofollow tag.

In fact, according to Technorati, salient’s last blog post was 19 days ago. I count 5 or 6 since then. But lo, I now get this when I try to re-click on the Technorati censorship newest post using the blogger “newer posts” function on the site Technorati.

Technorati’s Censorship?
expression as battle with the enemy.
Original post by salient
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 31st, 1969 at 7:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Wow. There’s a wormhole on salient’s site. He’s gone back in time. No wonder his post has disappeared. It won’t be written for nearly 40 years.

Stop, salient!! This is too dangerous. You may stop the whole Internet from getting invented, by snapping a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon.

More on my annoyance with the Blogroll

I was going to write this as a comment on the aside I made last night, however it seems to be a bit long winded for that (not to mention, the aside was supposed to be a bit of a quick rant! 🙂 ).

The previous post, resulted in several good comments from salient, heather and Mana which are well worth reading. Following their responses, I felt there were a couple of points I wanted to clarify – mainly to make my position on the matter clear, rather than actually disagreeing with anything they have said.

First off, my rant which started this was more the result of frustration than anything else. The blogroll is excellent and it has allowed both Heather and myself to discover some excellent, well written and entertaining blogs we would have otherwise missed. When this blog first joined it, we got two excellent advantages from membership:

  1. Every time some one on the blogroll made a post, Technorati granted a “link” (authority) to our blog if we were visible on their blogroll widget. It was this which propelled us from almost no technorati “authority” to dizzying heights (albeit short lived).
  2. Every time we made new posts, the **New next to our name drove traffic to our site. This resulted in lots of new traffic for the site, new readers, new commenters and new posts agreeing / disagreeing with our own.

Over time, Technorati removed the first advantage and now it seems Blogrolling are in the process of removing the second advantage. Over the last few days, the blogroll widget we display in the sidebar has done nothing but direct traffic away from our blog to other blogs (according to Feedburner outgoing links stats) – as we have not shown up on anyone else’s pages we have had no inbound traffic.

In reality, for the last three days now the blogroll has really been nothing but a free linking service to other atheist blogs. While I don’t really have a problem with that, it is a touch annoying that there is no reciprocation and, more importantly, we have no say (here at WhyDontYou) over which atheist blogs get linked to. As it stands, we would be better off replacing the blogrolling blogroll with a static blogroll where we chose which blogs were listed (note: at the moment, we have both).

While I am not, at the moment, thinking of removing the blogroll from here (and I wouldn’t advocate others remove it either – it is a good thing!), I do hope that someone with the requisite technical knowledge can come up with a solution to the problems. There must be a sufficiently IT literate atheist out there (or are they all on the sites which seem to always be on the blogroll!)

As further clarification, in my previous aside I was being very subjective when I complained that the good blogs seem to be missed out by the blogroll. I was, in an angry and frustrated manner, trying to complain that (often) if you visit all 25 blogs from the blogroll which should have “new” posts (i.e. are marked **New), you often find little more than a YouTube clip with no commentary or even no new posts. Yes, there are some brilliant blogs on the blogroll which I make the effort to visit as often as I remember, but there are a few that are barely readable.

In a nutshell (sorry for being longwinded about this!), the biggest thing which annoys me is the erratic nature of it all. For example, Pharyngula (an excellent blog) seems to be permanently on the blogroll (*) – which is understandable as he makes ten posts for every one a mere mortal can generate. However, WhyDontYou hasn’t been seen on it for the last three days, despite us having half a dozen new posts. I am sure there is no specific discrimination against this particular blog, I just wish I could work out how to solve it…

As a related aside, salient has an excellent post where he has looked at technorati stats for various words. Well worth checking out, and it seems to identify a global, significant, drop in blog traffic over the period 11 – 17 Nov. This is mirrors in the stats for visitors here, they plummeted around this period. Did the internet break for a few days?

(*) Comically, I have just looked and for the first time in ages, Pharyngula isn’t on the blogroll. Bah. Toutatis and Loki have conspired together to make me look silly. Hopefully he will be back before you read this… 🙂

Ex-Archbishop agrees with Dawkins on blasphemy

BBC’s Sunday morning religious broadcasting programme The Big Questions today discussed whether blasphemy law should be repealed and whether fundamentalist religious indoctrination of children was child abuse.

On the panel are Ann Widdecombe MP; Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury; Professor Richard Dawkins, the scientist and atheist; and Jonathan Bartley, the Director of Ekklesia, the religious think-tank. The special guest is the actor and singer, John Barrowman.

Members of the public apply for the rest of the slots. I doubt that the competition is intense. :-)There’s a number to call and a form on the BBC page, if you ever want to attend one of these.

Lord Carey supported Dawkins’ argument that blasphemy law should be repealed.

Dawkins pointed out that no one says “This is a post-modernist child ” although they will identify a Catholic child or a Baptist child. Naturally, the Archbishop disagreed on faith schools equalling indoctrination. He said baptism identified a person’s adherence to Christianity, rather than to any sect (which is surely missing the point) He even got slightly panicked, as he sought to distinguish UK religious schools from the behaviour shown in a film clip about US Faith camps, without saying anything to offend any fundamentalists in the lunatic wing of the Anglican church.

Generally, there was interesting and well-argued debate. Dawkins (wearing a fetching red A lapel badge) made excellent points throughout and was treated with respect by the celeb and non-celeb panel members and the presenter.

Astonishingly, a psychologist (who defined herself as culturally Jewish but religiously atheist) reported that a section of her degree students actually insisted that dinosaurs walked with humans and so on. She pointed out that, despite being in the final year of a science degree course, they had no understanding of science. Everyone – Christians, Muslims and atheists alike – expressed horror at the currency of anti-evolution beliefs. In fact, creationism was pretty well identified as child-abuse by at least one speaker.

The only reliably nutty person in the panel was former Conservative politician Anne Widdecombe, (wearing a less fetching cross on a necklace chain and a fish brooch.) She gets dragged into almost any televised discussion of religion, being so bizarrely un-mainstream as to be compelling.

I wasn’t taking notes – I didn’t know this would be on the test…. Someone might Youtube it.

Meme and morality

Thanks to Enonomi for the “earliest memory” meme tag. T_W has made so many posts today, it seemed churlish to make him do this one. (Though that was before I saw that he had insulted my typo-fuelled grammar.:-p) All the ame, I admit I’ve been dodging the responsibility – following the pattern of a lifetime.

This is mainly because my earliest memories are really boring. I was a baby, ffs. There’s only so much you can say about it. It’s a bit like telling people about some great dream you had. You had to be there…

I played in our apartment. I played in the garden and the park. My dad took me riding on the cross-bar of his bike, sometimes to feed sugar cubes to a terrifyingly huge and friendly horse. I can remember the environment in great detail but I can’t remember anyone’s faces. (I was a self-absorbed child)

I got a sister the day after my second birthday. I was pleased, assuming this was like a birthday present, a new doll that did stuff. Disappointingly, the stuff turned out to be crying and sleeping. I got used to ignoring her.

A professional photographer came, when my sister was a few months old. She cried nonstop and tried to crawl under the table. The photographer was sent away. I was ready to kill her. I wanted my picture taken and it seemed unjust to me that her wailing could stop me getting photographed. Even worse, they had made me wear a hideous cardigan that my grandmother had knitted. It seemed doubly unjust that, even though I’d made the massive sacrifice of agreeing to wear the ugly cardigan, I still wasn’t getting photographed. (I was a very vain child.)

A few months after my sister was born, we moved to a house. Joy! The phone was in a spare room, away from adult attention. I spent most of my unobserved time on it, cold-calling random numbers, chatting (expensively) for hours with anyone who answered. Until one woman demanded to speak to my mother and I was banned from the room with the phone.

I was three years and 3 months old. My mother was 7 months pregnant. She was moving a piano and it fell on her. (Aside. A baby grand piano, ffs? Where did it come from? Nobody played it. My mother sometimes claimed she could but she never tried to. Although, a year or so later, she did involve it when she practised kicking her own height -with me standing on the piano stool, holding my hand out at to mark her height and protesting constantly at the embarrassing stupidity of the enterprise. Until she accidentally kicked me in the head. I was knocked to the floor. saw stars. After which, I refused to play any more part in this demented practice.)

Trapped under the piano and forced into labour by its weight, my mother sent me to the phone to call the emergency ambulance. Somehow, I managed it. I can remember being furious at the injustice. “They won’t let me use the phone when I want to, but they expect me to use the phone whenever it suits them!” (As I said, I was a self-absorbed child.)

My father was stuck with two babies for a few weeks, while my mother and newly-emerged brother were in hospital. Every day, my dad felt obliged to come up with some new amusement. He took us to the circus (I loved every second, except for the frighteningly unfunny clowns), to the theatre, to the mountains, to the beach. (It was December.) It was great. Bah, my mother and brother finally came home and everyday life became dull and circus-free again.

My parents arranged for another photographer to take a picture of all 3 kids. But I was really annoyed by the stupid hairstyle I had and there was no way I was willingly getting my picture taken with it. It was worse than the cardigan because it was part of ME. (No one listened to my explanations of why this hairstyle was unacceptable.) I sat in the garden with a pair of scissors and cut the fringe that I wanted. I still remember the random screaming when I was spotted…. Plus my own fury at the injustice of my parents thinking that there could be anything dangerous in me cutting away hair that fell across my eyes. (The unfairness! As if I don’t know what I am doing! They treat me like a baby!)

They were being so irrational. Hair dragged back straight back from the forehead was patently ugly. No one would acknowledge this, despite my best efforts to educate them. I wanted a fringe. Scissors cut hair. Ergo, I had to cut my own hair. That should have been self-evident. If only adults weren’t so irrational….

Even worse, my mother dragged me to a hairdresser’s to get the fringe cut straight. So, although she had had to give way on the fringe, as a result of my direct action, I ended up with a stupid fringe that didn’t fit the image I was aiming for at all. It was actually even worse than having no fringe. It was way too short! It was cut comically straight across. What a stupid thing to do. Were they mad? Were they deliberately making a laughing stock of me? I kicked off so vehemently that the photography session got postponed another couple of years. (Not just vain but self-willed.)

I played complex games with neighbourhood kids – all usually involving homemade and ineffective bows and arrows and twig swords, with a lot of sycamore tree climbing and/or hiding in bushes. Princesses and outlaws and swineherds and pirates and fairies and witches were all involved. I collected bits of wild plants, sometimes looking for ways to synthesise wierd poisons to hide inside apples, sometimes trying to prove the existence of four-leaf clovers and sometimes trying to work out how you could make perfume from flowers. I was always grazing my knees. I got several infected cuts and insect bites, which ended up in frequent visits to the emergency room.

I’ve posted this stuff, despite it being pretty boring to anyone except me, because (a) these really are my earliest memories (up to about four years old) and I somehow feel I should respond honestly to the meme if I agreed to do it and (b) because I think it disputes a lot of (even my) assumptions about toddlers.

There was a fair bit of stuff in the newspapers about research that showed that 6 month olds could tell “nice” and “nasty” apart. Set aside the fact that it doesn’t really show that anyway. It’s been variously puffed as “proof” either that morality is genetically innate or that it comes direct from God.

Research led by Kiley Hamlin, a graduate student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, shows that babies less than a year old can judge the niceness or nastiness of others, even when watching events that don’t directly affect them. The researchers made the discovery using nothing more high-tech than a simple puppet show.
After watching the show, the babies, aged either six months or ten months, instinctively preferred ‘nice’ characters over less helpful ones. This kind of skill may be useful in helping them learn the right values as their social awareness develops later in childhood.(from the report in Nature)

The problem with most of the pop science conclusions from this stuff is that it it often assumes that babies are blank slates. However, by the time a baby is old enough to look at activities and communicate any preference, it’s been studying us intensively for months. It’s learned pretty much how to live in our world. It’s already learned lots of things about us that we don’t acknowledge to ourselves. So, how can anyone draw conclusions about innateness from the responses of socialised beings?

In any case, just because babies prefer people they think won’t harm them, how can you conclude that they will later decide to follow the behaviour of the “nice” ones? As presented in nature, this seems a one-dimensional view of how we develop a moral sense.

Maybe morality is encoded in some part of the human genome. There is some interesting research on this, discussed in New Scientist in August.

It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts.(from New Scientist)

The research recently reported in Nature can contribute to this but it doesn’t bear the interpretative weight being heaped upon it.

Looking at my own earliest memories, I can see that they come from a time that I could speak, even though they are mostly non-verbal and triggered by how I felt. I would assume that the developed characteristics of a toddler who can speak probably aren’t much different from a baby who can’t. I can’t imagine any way of testing this idea.

These anecdotes express a “me” that I can recognise as an individual. I would even admit that they express aspects of me that remain pretty well unchanged, for good and ill: rage at perceived injustice, excessive concern with aesthetics – especially the aesthetics of how I appear, the capacity to interpret events mainly in terms of how they affect me, love of stories, even the obsession with using reason to reach conclusions combined with a total failure to understand why everybody else doesn’t always see things the same way.

If a baby sees someone doing something unpleasant, they avoid that person. That makes sense, as the person whom they saw might turn that nastiness on them. This response seems to come from a sense of self-preservation – an evolutionary imperative -rather than being a result of babies making “moral judgements”. (Although, granted, babies’ capacity to scream until their parents want to cut their heads off to stop their mouths making noise contradicts the self-preservation bit.)

Who to tag? This is one of those memes where people might prefer not to get tagged but might feel it’s bad blogtiquette to refuse. At the same time, other bloggers might have really good things to say and might feel slighted at not getting any tags. Apart from these considerations, I am too lazy to pick a few names and check they haven’t already been tagged or actually done it. I prefer to read any blogs that I might tag for pleasure rather than research purposes.

So, I’m going to do what the Exterminator did. He said:

If you haven’t been tagged already, and want to be, either consider yourself so, or send me an email and I’ll make the tag formal for the Atheosphere record books.(from nomorehornets blog)

Plagiarising good ideas is probably the way to go, so I’m just lifting this bit. Replace email with comment and apply it here.

I think I’ll be a bit more specific, as well, though. If you have some interesting first memory, definitely consider yourself tagged. I’ll put a link to any interesting responses I came across (I’ve already mentioned the Exterminator and enonomi. Their posts are good reads.) And if I think of any specific blogs I really want to tag with this and they haven’t already done it, I might add them to this post..