Schneier on Security

HJohn • December 3, 2008 9:40 AM

@Clive Robinson: “Why is it always “older women” that the press report as getting caught by scammers? Does anybody know of a man getting caught in an endless cycle like this?”

I know of an 80+ year old man in Florida who lost, coincidentally, 400K, in a short incident (not one where he kept coming back, but where he lost his entire retirement account). I don’t know of any incident, man or woman, where they pushed 400K into something over time and through as muche effort as this one (it is one thing to lose your account, it’s another to lose an account, then mortage a car and lose it, then vehicles, etc.).

This “victim” is an idiot, no other conclusion can be drawn.

HJohn • December 3, 2008 4:01 PM

@Mathew Skala

You’re right, our country has been borrowing our way into disaster for decades. These bailouts aren’t going to stop it, and soon enough a surge of people will be looking to collect social security which won’t be there either, another debt disaster.

What’s amusing is how many on the right excuse President Bush’s big spending (and, for the record, Bush did not create this problem, but he didn’t help matters any either), and how many on the left still think President Clinton delivered surpluses (he didn’t, not to mention he pushed through sub prime mortages, not that I think its all his fault either). What, one might ask? We had surpluses in the 90s, right? Not exactly. While we may have technically took in more than was spent, we still incurred more obligations than we could handle. It’s the equivalent of earning $30,000 a year, only spending $25,000, yet signing a “no interest until 2018” line of credit for $50,000 worth of remodeling.

In any case, this is off topic, but I wanted to respond to the economic crisis comment. We’re a spend happy society and we elect spend happy politicians. While most people know better than to wire $400K to anyone, let alone someone they don’t know, many still don’t understand risk.

HJohn • December 3, 2008 4:36 PM

@Clive Robinson: “Why is it always “older women” that the press report as getting caught by scammers?”

I think there are a couple reasons. First, victimized women tend to get more sympathy than victimized men. Second, normally in the older category, it would likely be someone widowed (if they had a spouse, the odds of them both being this dumb would be less, and they would talk them out of it) and there are more widowed women than men (interesting, this was a case where the spouse was living, who like most tried to talk her out of it).

Third, and I really really hate to say this, these scammers see women as more naive and empathetic, and play on their emotions more. Whether or not that is the reality is not for me to answer, but I think it is the perception among the scammers. A “business” that turned out to be sued for fraud by other parties tried to get my wife and I to sign up. Their rules for attending their “presentation” were that the attendees must be: a single woman, a single woman with a live in boyfriend, or a married/engaged couple. They would not allow men to attend by themselves, but would allow women to, and my wife questioned this and they said “men usually don’t see the value in this and take advantage of it unless persuaded by women.” (translation: we find women to be more naive).

Please, I’m not saying this is the reality. I don’t want women thinking I’m bashing their gender. I’ve said on this thread where my wife has twarted a couple scams. I’m just saying that it is how the perpetrators perceive it, and if you target a group more frequently, that is the group that will commonly be hit the hardest.