@c_9@pluralistic
Bookmarking pluralistic...
My niece recently ignored several legit calls from her bank calling to alert her to actual unusual fraudulent activity. And my mother ignores numbers she doesn't recognize on the conviction that if it's important they'll leave a message. I wish they had a more precise strategy for protecting themselves as this feels too broad. But I answer dozens of calls about Amazon orders (robo) and Rogers deals (live) and ignore attachments in MMS.
@ocursedspite@c_9@pluralistic
It doesn't help that banks insist on calling from numbers that aren't documented on their site and that it's so hard to get to the fraud department when you try to call them back from a known contact number.
When you finally do get back to them, they feign ignorance for a while before they can finally fumble their way to someone who knows what the call was about.
Then there are the emails with links that are masked or relay through tracking sites.
@dbrand666@c_9@pluralistic based on the story of the victim who gave the scammers $50k in a shoebox, unfortunately publishing the numbers sounds like the scammers would just use them to spoof the caller ID and we're back to square one.
You still need to call them back. I just wish the numbers they leave on voicemail or in emails were numbers on their websites. Or, as suggested above, let me call the number on my card and just leave me an extension.
They teach bad habits.
(And wasn't STIR/SHAKEN supposed to put an end to spoofing?)