Knowing what numbers are real through an official publication is very good, but it only allows you to place trust in calls you make, not calls you receive, because making calls doesn't involve caller ID, receiving calls does, and caller ID is spoofable.

▲

4ndrewl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's the number one rule though. If someone calls you claiming to be your bank, just say "I'll call you back"

▲

smcin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ask them their name/ last initial, employee ID or unique identifier for the conversation, direct phone number, job title and what location they're based at. Scammers will pretty much always refuse/argue/hang up on this (once I had one start insulting my mother in Hindi when I asked him this). Then call your bank's proper number and verify all of these details.

(But in any case your bank will never call outwards to you, unless you've specifically requested that, which you almost never do.)

▲

DamonHD 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately my UK banks (and others) DO regularly make calls to me unannounced and demand my ID to 'prove who I am'. They are not scam calls and the callers cannot understand what they are doing wrong. If I'd had more strength in the last round of this stupidity I'd have done a number on them with the regulator. (I used to work in finance and was the director of a regulated financial entity, so I think I'd have a head start.)

▲

TeMPOraL an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> They are not scam calls

What are they, then? Sales/marketing calls? Or some security notifications ("we noticed some suspicious operations in the last 3 days...")? If it's the former, that's still scam in my books. Specifically, it's a first-party scam, as opposed to a third-party scam, where some third party pretends to be your bank.

They both should be treated similarly; unfortunately, you can't report first-party scams to police.

▲

Cider9986 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah and people call crypto a scam.

It mostly is, but Monero is pretty good.

▲

cuteboy19 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is time we have a good industry standard for this stuff

	▲	lostlogin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I dream of a time I don’t have a bank, or not in any traditional sense. I’d been hunting for ways to use a Wisecard standoff a bank but got a bit wary of what would happen if they went bust. Government backed guarantee do not exist for Wise.

▲

jack1142 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Nowadays, when banks call you here, they allow you to verify the bank is actually calling you with the mobile app - you can see their name and number they're calling you from in the app. Also, you can often verify you're you with the app too, same as any other app authorization, so you don't have to share any details over the phone. I feel like this is a pretty good improvement.

▲

bdavbdav 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would take nothing to implement. Services like Truecaller already do live caller ID against databases on iOS / Android. All it would take is a sensible register of verified numbers

▲

Abishek_Muthian 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Several of the bank scammers had their profile verified as the bank in the Truecaller[1].

[1] https://xcancel.com/Abishek_Muthian/status/18063480222902113...

▲

l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-]

Truecaller can tell you about who a phone number belongs to.

Truecaller cannot accurately tell you whether or not the person calling you from a phone number is actually in control of that phone number.

▲

TeMPOraL an hour ago | parent [-]

Won't stop people from trying to make Truecaller, et al. prove that, though.

The problem here is that the correct security posture of the bank against third-party scams also protects the customers from first-party scams. Telling people the bank will never call them for anything, and even if, they're to always hang up and call the number on the back of their card, works equally well against criminals and telemarketers.

	▲	l23k4 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like this is kind-of a solved problem in the jurisdictions where banks are liable for customer losses not arising from gross negligence. If a bank calls their customers directly and trains them to get phished, the bank does not get to claim gross negligence when this happens and has to refund the customer. If a bank tells their customers that they'll never call them (and actually doesn't), they have much better chances of claiming gross negligence on the part of the customer.