AI-based scam checkers are gaining popularity but I would be cautious in following their advice unless the company is willing to stand behind it. For example, Metro Bank makes bold claims but the fine print absolves them of any responsibility for errors. www.metrobankonline.co.uk/ways-to-bank...

Along with Sir Peter Fraser, I'll be speaking at the Inner Temple on the reliability of electronic evidence. The event is open to the public, so if you're interested in the topic, you can join in person or online. www.innertemple.org.uk/events/?id=E...

Interestingly, the EU proposal introduces liability for “electronic communications service providers”. The banking industry has been lobbying for years to get (primarily) Facebook to cover the cost of reimbursements. There’s no UK proposal for this (so far).

Previously the EU reimbursement only applied when the criminal impersonates the bank, but now it’s been expanded to any type of impersonation.

If you want to take the direct route to your gates and avoid the crowded shopping area, you’ll be charged £10 per person for the privilege.

At Stansted Airport, notorious for an unpleasant experience (long queues, too few seats, routes forcing passengers through shops, …) someone decided that the real problem is the signs saying “Wait for gate” and should instead be “Relax”.

I’m pleased the article managed to include one of the more subtle points – better security features aren’t always better for fraud victims.

Personally, I'm pleased to see this development. Competition and consumer choice is a powerful mechanism for change, when it is informed by good data. By the way, what’s going on with Dzing Finance – 19% of payments received are fraudulent! /ends

Statistics on authorized push payment from the PSR are interesting in their own right but also breaks new ground in that they differentiate between banks’ security. The banking industry has published good aggregate statistics but pushed hard against separating it per bank. 🧵 1/3