Data Protection - is it just me ?

[MrEarl]

Hi,

While I'm all in favour of companies protecting our data I've found something odd happening with more and more companies (financial and otherwise).

When one of these companies phone me, they instigate the call but then insist on going through their security questions before proceeding with the call. They tell me that they have to do this to protect my security and yet, they are calling me on the numbers that they have previously been provided with by me.

It's one thing if I instigate the call and they want to verify who I am, but it's a bit mad that they make the call and then want me to answer sensitive questions about myself - sure it could be a senior ranking army officer from somewhere in Africa wanting to transfer $20,000,000 to me and looking for my bank transfer details, date of birth etc. for all I know.

Surely, if they call me I should have security questions set up with them for them to answer for me, so I can confirm that they are who they claim to be !

So, is the law a bit mad, the people who are trying to interpret the law, or is it just me ?

 

[Leo]

Those questions are designed to prevent others in the household, or with access to your phone getting access to your information or carrying out transactions on your accounts. The effectiveness is often compromised though by the use of security questions that anyone in the household would know the answers to.

 

[Thirsty]

I have a policy that I don't give out this information if I didn't originate the call. Take their details and call the company back on the main number.

 

[MrEarl]

Those questions are designed to prevent others in the household, or with access to your phone getting access to your information or carrying out transactions on your accounts. The effectiveness is often compromised though by the use of security questions that anyone in the household would know the answers to.

Hi Leo,

While I understand and appreciate that (along with the point about family members being likely to know the answers), my point is that it's an incoming call - so it should be up to the party who instigate the call to identify themselves to your satisfaction, not the other way around, if you want your Data Protected.

Thirsty seems to have the same concern and a practical solution - although unfortunitely that results in you having to incur the cost of additional calls and often you only get through to a call centre where you can have a significant wait before finally getting to find out what they wanted you for in the first instance.

 

[Leo]

Hi Leo,

While I understand and appreciate that (along with the point about family members being likely to know the answers), my point is that it's an incoming call - so it should be up to the party who instigate the call to identify themselves to your satisfaction, not the other way around, if you want your Data Protected.

Thirsty seems to have the same concern and a practical solution - although unfortunitely that results in you having to incur the cost of additional calls and often you only get through to a call centre where you can have a significant wait before finally getting to find out what they wanted you for in the first instance.

Fully agree, I was only explaining why they have to ask you questions to verify your identity. Your post suggested that the verification should only be the other way round if they phone you on a number you provide, manys the fraud that has been perpetuated where providers didn't adequately vet the person on the other end of the phone.

Really, it needs to be a two-way verification, and you need to satisfy yourself they are who they claim to be. Phoning them back on a published number is one way, but there are likely questions you can ask them once they are happy they're talking to the right person that should satisfy you they are who they claim to be.

 

[hfp]

As someone who has been in the position of having to make these types of calls to customers it always amazed me just how many people would answer our security questions without challenging us!! I would never in a million years have answered the questions that we had to ask!!

It could be slightly farcical at times; if we were phoning Mr Brown about his loan application and Mrs Brown answered the phone we weren't even allowed to tell Mrs Brown what bank we were phoning from!! The theory is that it is no concern of Mrs Brown's that her husband has made an application at X bank and he may not want her to know anything about it!!

We did have a freephone number we could give the customer which they could verify against their application letter and they would come straight back through to us, which kept most people happy.

The massive security breach at TalkTalk in the UK just shows that even when a company phones and can verify your customer number and personal details there's still no guarantee that they are who they say they are, always better to ring back on a verifiable number....

 

[MrEarl]

...if we were phoning Mr Brown about his loan application and Mrs Brown answered the phone we weren't even allowed to tell Mrs Brown what bank we were phoning from!!....

I'm sure the real irony was when you were actually calling Mr. Brown about his joint account, but with a specific purpose for wanting to speak to Mr. Brown about something

 

[Gerry Canning]

The more we answer unsolicited calls , the more we encourage them.
If its important the l caller can send a letter , An Post needs the work.

I too am amazed, how people get entranced by phone calls and freely blurt out info!

 

[PyritePete]

i cut it short and ask the caller to send me a letter instead of the call at least there may be a paper trail, as I am old and doddery and cant remember stuff for too long.

When they refuse or cant, can you send me an email. Again its a no, so I then ask can i send you an email and you reply back to it. And quelle surprise, another no. The number of these type of calls has diminshed....

 

[MrEarl]

i cut it short and ask the caller to send me a letter instead of the call at least there may be a paper trail, as I am old and doddery and cant remember stuff for too long.

When they refuse or cant, can you send me an email. Again its a no, so I then ask can i send you an email and you reply back to it. And quelle surprise, another no. The number of these type of calls has diminshed....

Sounds to me like you've had contact with Pepper
- it simply defies belief that they don't use email.

 

[PyritePete]

I could download software onto my Smartphone and record the conversations but why should I or anyone else do that ?

Its all to convenient for companies not to write/type an email etc. Maybe next time I'll offer to send them an A4 ream of paper