"Ok Boomer" is right! Next time, listen and learn!

[Digerati]

Digital natives more likely to fall for phishing attacks at work than their Gen X and Boomer colleagues

A new Trust Issues survey found that Gen Z and Millennials should follow the example set by their elders to develop better cyber hygiene habits at work.

The survey asked how respondents reacted to a suspicious looking email with a link or an attachment. Forty-six percent of Gen Z respondents said they would open the link or attachment, compared to just 1% of Boomers, 4% of Gen X and 29% of Millennials who also would take the bait.

 

[britechguy]

You can fix ignorance, which is cured by education, but you can't fix stupid!

I have to wonder how and why anyone would ever answer, "I would open the link or attachment," for any email message that isn't clearly something they would have expected to receive from someone they already know.

The techniques being asked about are just so far and away from being news that I cannot fathom ignorance about them from digital natives.

 

[xrobwx71]

You can fix ignorance, which is cured by education, but you can't fix stupid!

Quote of the millennia.

 

[Gary R]

Age brings with it experience, and experience tends to breed a cynical and suspicious mind (well it did with me anyway ).

So it doesn't exactly surprise me too much, that older folk are less trusting than the young.

 

[britechguy]

So it doesn't exactly surprise me too much, that older folk are less trusting than the young.

That, in and of itself is unsurprising.

What is surprising is that those who've nursed at the teat of computer technology since birth would not recognize common scams that have been circulating since long before they were born. They should be steeped in the lore related to scams. It shouldn't be new to them, or a surprise to them, once they've reached the age of employment. That it either seems to be just this, or they're this stupid, is jaw-dropping to me.

 

[Digerati]

that older folk are less trusting than the young.

I'm not sure that is it. We trust. That's the problem and why the elderly is frequently targeted for scams. We really want to believe people are honest. But many of us have, fortunately, learned to "trust but verify".

The problem with the younger folks today, those who are the subject of this topic, is they don't stop to think for just half a second to determine if the link is worth trusting, or not. They are "click-happy".

"Ooh! There's link. I need to click it." Or, "Oh, you want my mother's maiden name? Okay."

It is like Doctor Who and buttons and switches.

 

[Gary R]

I'm not sure that is it. We trust. That's the problem and why the elderly is frequently targeted for scams.

You and I are clearly from different backgrounds then, because where I live, people my age trust nobody, but maybe that's just a Yorkshire trait.

As for the young, nothing they do surprises me, and the fact that they've grown up with technology, means it has if anything become too familiar. So familiar in fact, that they have ceased to really think about what it is that they have in their hands, they just use it.

Years of online conditioning has in fact predisposed them to click on things, much more than those of us who spent our formative years without the enticements and temptations that the young are now subject to on a daily basis.

 

[Digerati]

You and I are clearly from different backgrounds then, because where I live, people my age trust nobody, but maybe that's just a Yorkshire trait.

So are you saying the elderly in your part of the world are not scammed because they are too clever to be duped?

 

[Gary R]

No that it not what I am saying, so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

I'm talking about natural local traits, and like all such things they vary from person to person. What I said, was that people around here have a tendency towards skepticism, and are generally less trusting. That does not mean that there are individuals who do not possess that trait, only that they are less common than in some other places.

In any case, skepticism has nothing to do with how clever you are, it's just a natural tendency which is more prevalent amongst some communities than others.

 

[Digerati]

so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Gee whiz. I didn't. It was not a statement. It was a question asking for clarification - hence the phrase "are you saying" along with the question mark (?) at the end of the sentence.

 

[plodr]

My husband and I, both in our 70's, are suspicious. I generally hang up on callers when I answer the phone. Most times I just let it ring. Legitimate callers leave a message.

But my husband's sister who is in her 80's gives her information over the phone then calls my husband and asks what he thinks! Twice she has had to get a new credit card.
We keep telling her to do what we do, hang up. We also tell her to NEVER give a credit card number, SS number to someone who called her. She just never gets the message and it isn't because she is senile. She is very conscious of things but she keeps falling for scams. Thank goodness she doesn't own a computer nor have internet access or I suspect, she'd be paying someone to clean up the computer.

 

[britechguy]

Thank goodness she doesn't own a computer nor have internet access or I suspect, she'd be paying someone to clean up the computer.

Or worse. One of my aunts, now deceased, "lost" (and I mean by stupidly sending) over $10K to an online scammer of the long-term "I care about you" social engineering type. She would have lost even more had one of my cousins not discovered what was going on (and promptly cut off her internet access, as she was going into the early stages of dementia at the same time).

Those who are not able to become, "once burned, twice shy," end up getting on the scammer lists and hit again and again and again.

 

[Digerati]

I generally hang up on callers when I answer the phone. Most times I just let it ring. Legitimate callers leave a message.

I never answer unless it is one of my known saved contacts and then the caller ID will identify them as I saved them and I will pickup. If anyone else, I will wait for them to start leaving a voice mail message. If someone I want to talk to, I will pick up. If not, I will let them leave their message. If not legit, as plodr notes, they probably will not leave a message and I probably will block that number so it never rings again. If a new contact, I will add them to my phone book with a descriptive (to me) name so next time they call, I will know it is safe to pickup.

but your statement/question also said .... "because they are too clever to be duped" .

It was part of the same single sentence asking the question. You literally took it out of context!

can we just agree that we both misinterpreted each other's posts

That was given from the start which is why I was "asking" for clarification. I was readily admitting I did not understand what you were saying. That is NOT putting words in your mouth.

 

[Will]

There's a wonderful irony in younger generations being criticised for being "too trusting", when the "trusted survey" comes from a firm trying to sell companies identity security software. This survey wasn't carried out by a market research / data analytics company with a robust scientific methodology - it's a "survey" released by a company trying to sell an identity management platform, and who have an incentive to tell companies that the largest age group in their workforce are the most vulnerable.

Correction to the above - the survey was carried out by a market research company. That said, I do still think the above still stands - the purpose of the research is still fundamentally to sell security software to companies.


If we break down the stats:

• Financial Fraud in the US by far predominantly targets older age groups - and "According to research by the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Investor Education Foundation, those over the age of 65 are more likely to have lost money due to a financial scam than someone in their 40s." (Source: Link)
• For online fraud, the largest amount of money lost was in the 60+ age group (close to $1B in 2020), closely followed by the 50-59 age group (around $850-900M in 2020). Both loses are significantly larger for older age groups than users below the age of 30. (Based on FBI stats for 2020)
• There is some research that indicates that younger age groups is the quickest growing segment to be caught by fraud - however there's still quite a way to catch up before the age groups become more equal. Younger age groups are also the heaviest users of online shopping and the internet in general, so have more opportunities to be caught in a scam.

I don't personally know anyone in my age group or younger who would use a work email for their own social media - very much the opposite. Corporate email accounts might be given out to online shops - but a lot of the time this happens this will be for privacy reasons, so that the online shop doesn't have the customers data.

 

[Digerati]

I don't personally know anyone in my age group or younger who would use a work email for their own social media - very much the opposite.

That one surprised me too. I don't know of any who would do that either. In fact, for me, it was company policy we don't. But beyond that, we knew very well that those emails might be monitored. I think everyone should assume that company emails are being monitored - especially with company owned and provided computers.

For online fraud, the largest amount of money lost was in the 60+ age group (close to $1B in 2020), closely followed by the 50-59 age group (around $850-900M in 2020). Both loses are significantly larger for older age groups than users below the age of 30. (Based on FBI stats for 2020)

I have no doubt that is true. But considering those under 30 make up a significantly larger percentage of those falling for such scams, I can only assume the much smaller elderly group loses more money because they have much more money to lose. When I was 30, I was still raising my family. There was almost always too much month at the end of the money. If I wanted something, chances are I had to save up for it, go in further debt for it, or simply forget about it and dream on.

Today, I still am not rich by any means. But short of a new Bugatti or 5,000 sq foot home, if I want something, I just go buy it.

 

[Will]

This references a deleted post which has now been removed as this has been resolved.

-------

All deleted posts in this thread were removed by me, with the exception of a single post that was about to be removed by me, but another mod beat me to it by a few minutes.

The posts deleted in this thread (from 3 separate users) contributed very little to the thread topic, and several of them were antagonistic in nature. I can only advise that members posting consider whether their post is a genuine contribution to the topic, or whether it's devolving into an argument.

If anyone would like to discuss this further, please send me a PM. I will be deleting any further posts on this issue.

Regards,
Will

 

[Gary R]

In which case Will, my apologies, both to you and the forum, for going off topic, and to Bill for jumping to hasty conclusions, my unworthy thoughts and the comments expressed in my previous post.