Consumers who receive incoming calls from their financial institutions are vulnerable to phone phishing scams, where dubious characters extract private data under the premise that they are the consumer's financial service provider. Consider the example of a mortgage borrower who receives a call where the caller ID is blocked. The caller could have researched public records to learn the identity of the property owner and the name of the mortgage lender. With such information in hand, the caller pretends to be the lender and begins asking the consumer for personal data as part of security procedures. The caller winds up giving out personal information to an unknown party. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus acknowledged that Chase asks for customer verification so that information is not shared with other occupants at the home. "But we always introduce ourselves, and we also state the reason for the call," she said. Another scenario involves a call that is only identified as a toll-free telephone on caller ID. This is the case with calls from Bank of America Corp., which also asks for verifying personal data. BofA didn't comment in response to a request for clarification about its procedures. While a toll-free number in the caller ID display might seem reassuring to the borrower, it doesn't take much for a criminal operator to obtain a toll-free number and execute a phone phishing scheme...
Start your own group! All DESIGN 21 members have the ability to create organizations.Create A Group
Community, Communication Design
Posted March 04, 2013
By Clausen Holmberg
Community, Communication DesignVotes (1)
In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had signed an executive order (EO) on cybersecurity. The order uses a standard-setting approach to improve cybersecurity. However, such a model will only impose costs, encourage compliance over security, keep the U.S. tied to past threats, and threaten innovation. While the EO does take some positive steps in the area of information sharing, these steps are hamstrung by the EO’s inability to provide critical incentives such as liability protection. As a result, this order could result in few modest changes, or it could result in substantial negative effects.
Posted February 16, 2013
By Clausen Holmberg