Firstly thank you for detailing this - it's embarssing to be hoodwinked - and often people won't admit to it - which leaves a wide field of ignorance for the scammers - so thank you.
My go: my wife and I went down a similar rabbit-hole. I like to think I am quite saavy, and "aware" - but we got caught on (If I recall right) either Christmas eve or New Years eve (off guard) - banks obviously mostly closed (helplessness) - and a call saying there has been suspicious activity on your account which is on-going (create a sense of urgency) - I questioned the legitamacy - she said verify the number (I googled it, it was indeed our banks fraud line - by now I know it was spoofed)... it was masterful manipulation. However, I remembered the golden rule that banks won't ask for your details - so when the "verification check" needed card details I woke up - and gave incorrect numbers - interestingly she was working towards more data gathering and had noted the false numbers - but said, "yes the verification has all gone through fine" - so I knew then it was a scam - it wouldn't have verified. So as we were chilling we kept her on line making up more and more stupid "information" for as long as possible - ended up being quite entertaining to see how much time we could waste (and save someone else a call!).
BTW "Influence et manipulation" - ROBERT CIALDINI is a great read.
Thank you for your story, Pandreco. I'm impressed that you thought to test them with false information. Everyone should have that technique in their defense kit. My scammers never asked for sensitive information which I would most definitely not given. Your idea of feeding them false stuff is brilliant: what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Unless the described actions are fiction to elaborate a possible narrative, you played with their fire on your turf and should probably have your mouse confiscated until you write 6 x 10^23 times on the chalk board: "I will not play with that fire, again."
But, a "mere" $9,800 X 100 folks per week is just shy of $1mm..... PER WEEK.
Even if their same success rate is 1/1,000, you can see where this is pretty lucrative, pretty quickly.
The bitcoin angle is the absolute "tell". Why Bitcoin? Distributed ledger. (They believe unable to be tracked).
You will find this funny. We use Windows. This week, while looking up a famous quote from MIT's Richard Lindzen, we went to a website that did the exact same thing to our machine. We escaped the window, shut down the machine. Restarted it, our virus systems knocked it out.
Now, Lindzen's quote, for you & Meredith, in the event you're not familiar with it. It's ~20 odd years old:
"future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
Thank you for the comment. Add an 18th red flag: bitcoin. I was not familiar with the quote, but in those days I paid no attention to what was happening in the wider world. Of course, his prediction is likely more accurate than 99% of predictions.
Hi George,
Firstly thank you for detailing this - it's embarssing to be hoodwinked - and often people won't admit to it - which leaves a wide field of ignorance for the scammers - so thank you.
My go: my wife and I went down a similar rabbit-hole. I like to think I am quite saavy, and "aware" - but we got caught on (If I recall right) either Christmas eve or New Years eve (off guard) - banks obviously mostly closed (helplessness) - and a call saying there has been suspicious activity on your account which is on-going (create a sense of urgency) - I questioned the legitamacy - she said verify the number (I googled it, it was indeed our banks fraud line - by now I know it was spoofed)... it was masterful manipulation. However, I remembered the golden rule that banks won't ask for your details - so when the "verification check" needed card details I woke up - and gave incorrect numbers - interestingly she was working towards more data gathering and had noted the false numbers - but said, "yes the verification has all gone through fine" - so I knew then it was a scam - it wouldn't have verified. So as we were chilling we kept her on line making up more and more stupid "information" for as long as possible - ended up being quite entertaining to see how much time we could waste (and save someone else a call!).
BTW "Influence et manipulation" - ROBERT CIALDINI is a great read.
Thank you for your story, Pandreco. I'm impressed that you thought to test them with false information. Everyone should have that technique in their defense kit. My scammers never asked for sensitive information which I would most definitely not given. Your idea of feeding them false stuff is brilliant: what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Unless the described actions are fiction to elaborate a possible narrative, you played with their fire on your turf and should probably have your mouse confiscated until you write 6 x 10^23 times on the chalk board: "I will not play with that fire, again."
Mea culpa!
Geez, George. Hate to hear this.
But, a "mere" $9,800 X 100 folks per week is just shy of $1mm..... PER WEEK.
Even if their same success rate is 1/1,000, you can see where this is pretty lucrative, pretty quickly.
The bitcoin angle is the absolute "tell". Why Bitcoin? Distributed ledger. (They believe unable to be tracked).
You will find this funny. We use Windows. This week, while looking up a famous quote from MIT's Richard Lindzen, we went to a website that did the exact same thing to our machine. We escaped the window, shut down the machine. Restarted it, our virus systems knocked it out.
Now, Lindzen's quote, for you & Meredith, in the event you're not familiar with it. It's ~20 odd years old:
"future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
Thank you for the comment. Add an 18th red flag: bitcoin. I was not familiar with the quote, but in those days I paid no attention to what was happening in the wider world. Of course, his prediction is likely more accurate than 99% of predictions.