Re[2]: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers

[Karl Peters - TLDA <tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I can see benefit in having .bank for security purposes.  Logins for home 
> users etc. could have built 
> in software that checks to make sure that the TLD is correct before asking 
> for login and password. 
>  I am sure that this type of software would be (relatively) easy to design 
> (and install locally) and would 
> save a lot of people from internet fraud.  On the other hand, Sotiris is 
> right, the fraudsters will quickly 
> find other ways.  It is about education, essentially, and I don't think the 
> banks do enough on this score. 
> But a .bank coupled with the right software would go some way to restore good 
> faith, good practice 
> and relatively good security IMHO.
> Best regards
> Debbie

I heartily agree! As for fraudsters finding a way around it, they really won't 
have to in order to 
keep a reasonable market of prey in hand. Most fraud is not that clever, but 
made to look 
attractive or imperative to the really naive user. Banks offering online 
services should probably 
require at least a twenty minute video be watched by account holders before 
allowing them 
online access at all, to insure they have at least a bare-bones understanding 
of who is out 
there to swindle them. All account holders should actually be given such a 
short course these 
days, as very few lack internet and are unreachable by very inexpensive spam 
efforts that 
attack those naive. The .bank TLD is a good step, though, in assuring those who 
type in their 
own destination and not follow a deceptive link will actually get to a real 
bank. Then we need 
watch out for banks that regularly commit fraud or cooperate with it, or are 
registered in places 
where there is little or no regulation on banks. Just being a verifiable bank 
does not guarantee
any level of ethic or scruple, though the chances are better!

-Karl E. Peters