[kchr]

> The consequence is that the cost of stupid, scammed, customers is passed to all customers, including those that do not send money to scammers.

What you conveniently left out in that cost calculation are the thousands of elderly and mentally ill people falling victims of such scammers. And who are these "stupid" people you mention anyway? Everybody knows social engineering is getting harder and harder to identify, considering how technology advances (spoofing SMS/caller ID, deepfakes, AI etc)

[miohtama]

The fraud can be tackle other ways than making banks to pay for the fraud. There are tons of ways like extra confirmations of the payment, thresholds on daily payments, payment delays or just having a setting in your bank account that you are allowed to make "high risk" payments.

But if you want to make the society to pay for vulnerable people, victims and friendly fraud, if we want to protect the eldery and others, these people can take an insurance against scams if they feel they are a vulnerable group. This is not a health issue, this is not a physical threat. This is not an epidemic. There is a cost of giving free insurance to these people, and a lot of them won't be eldery but the abusers fo the system. This was discussed in the article of Financial Times, and based on the news link, there is also a massive indirect cost for people by creating the unbalanced system of fraud reimbursement.

1 out of 8 UK people commit fraud, so banks can now prepare feel the cost of this new form of friendly fraud:

https://www.cifas.org.uk/newsroom/fraudbehaviours23

[kchr]

Yeah, I realise now that I read your reply my message was just questioning the broad blame on so called "stupid people", without discussing the responsibility part of it. I absolutely agree the banks should implement more preventive measures to combat fraud where possible. In many cases, fraud is obvious from the bank's perspective but might not be from the victim's, for many reasons.