None of this, btw, is me railing scam victims. I know a few.
It's me railing the bullshit advice people give that's reductionist because they can't conceive - despite talking to victims at the time - that they might trust someone enough to fall for shit.
They think it's a single click on a single link, or one simple thing, rather than (often) a long, slow process.
Hell, the fucking person they're using (ABC presents issues as case studies so they can surface the same article with a new face a week later), got hit TWICE, once by sms and once by email, and just... No? 'once she transferred the money, she realised something was wrong' (paraphrased)
Ok, but then... 'not long after, she was contacted by a scammer by email and after following the prompts she effectively gave them access to her computer and banking'
'her son, Mark - himself the victim of a Facebook marketplace scam a few years ago - says his mum is savy with computers'
I'm sorry, you're just gonna drop two hits in one fucking sentence like that? Her son fell for a scam and then his mum isn't on alert for this kind of shit going forwards?
There's a LOT of advertising over the 'hi mum' scam. Specifically aimed at her demographic
One of my huge fucking problems with 'awareness' articles, is: 90% of the time, the info is fucking bullshit to grab attention and doesn't actually make people aware of what they need to know.
This fucking shit, with that headline, loads people into guarding against 'suspicious links'.
It's not the link, it's people gaining your confidence - the link isn't 'suspicious' because you're trusting that person by the time they hit you
As much as I fucking hate banks, they have put in MANY safeguards, and you have to generally go through many steps to wilfully hand over ALL your fucking money to a new account you haven't dealt with before.