# GQ is for factual answers, not WAGs. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 15, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701 "2011-10-15T02:28:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/81 "2011-10-18T19:44:48Z")
I’m guessing the other party was phishing for Nigerians. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/82 "2011-10-18T19:46:28Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It was definitively a case of phishing. O … phish off. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/83 "2011-10-18T20:18:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > It wasn’t phrased that way. People who had experience with the matter knew exactly what I was talking about. Generally GQs aren’t written so that every Tom Dick and Harry with no knowledge of the subject matter can understand them. The point was to get an answer to my question, not provide a lesson on bank verification techniques. I don’t have a dog is this fight, but the problem is, with as vague as your OP was, some people believed they had experience with your situation and were wrong. If you had been more clear with your initial question, for instance mentioning that it was with scottrade and that it was one of multiple options, the inaccurate answers likely wouldn’t have been posted. Yes, people should wait to post guesses and such if they aren’t sure or aren’t experts on the subject, but I also think the OP of a GQ thread has an obligation to provide as much context as reasonably possible to make sure people don’t have a misunderstanding of the question at hand. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Most of those people don’t know about phishing. If you asked someone if they were sure it came from their bank and wasn’t a phishing expedition, you would be able to tell if they understood the concept. I’d also tend to believe that 99% of the people here know what phishing is. I have to disagree with this. I have known more than a few people who have been caught by scams or phishing and in each case they were aware of it but still got caught anyway. For instance, my best friend’s mom got scammed by a varient of the Nigerian banker scam, despite his and my advice that it was a scam; her counter argument was that they ask for your bank information, but they weren’t doing that here they were sending her cashier’s checks to cash instead, clearly totally legit. :rolleyes: I have also known people get phished who I know had to know about it, since they work in IT, and have had their gamin accounts “hacked” or their bank or credit card accounts accessed. Of course, I’ve also known people who have gotten phished who weren’t aware of it, but I think its wrong, and potentially dangerous, to believe that the majority of people who get hit by it don’t know what it is. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/84 "2011-10-18T20:27:58Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > You did your small part to taint the purity of GQ. Heh. You said taint. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/85 "2011-10-18T20:28:30Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I have to disagree with this. I have known more than a few people who have been caught by scams or phishing and in each case they were aware of it but still got caught anyway. For instance, my best friend’s mom got scammed by a varient of the Nigerian banker scam, despite his and my advice that it was a scam; her counter argument was that they ask for your bank information, but they weren’t doing that here they were sending her cashier’s checks to cash instead, clearly totally legit. :rolleyes: I have also known people get phished who I know had to know about it, since they work in IT, and have had their gamin accounts “hacked” or their bank or credit card accounts accessed. > > Of course, I’ve also known people who have gotten phished who weren’t aware of it, but I think its wrong, and potentially dangerous, to believe that the majority of people who get hit by it don’t know what it is. Huh. That’s very sad. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/86 "2011-10-18T20:46:29Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > **Psychonaut and Mangetout** , it’s still obvious you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The key difference that you all are overlooking is that the Nigerian scams and phishing come unsolicited. The verification process that **treis** is talking about is something **you initiate** with your bank and the other party, like a brokerage firm in order to link the accounts so you can transfer funds between the two. **You** start the process and only then do they ask for your bank info. I knew exactly what **treis** was asking. None of that was abundantly clear in the two line OP of the thread in question. It may have been obvious to someone already familiar with that form of transaction, but that only demonstrate that things are obvious when you know them. To someone unfamiliar with that form of transaction, it could easily have been describing a scam, because someone taken in by a scam isn’t guaranteed to describe it coherently anyway. Either way, it wasn’t an example of people posting Wags in GQ. Just an example of people getting it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/87 "2011-10-18T20:56:23Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > The key difference that you all are overlooking is that the Nigerian scams and phishing come unsolicited. How is that remotely relevant? Lots of legitimate business proposals are also unsolicited. Every day we get bombarded by advertisements from legitimate companies trying to sell us goods and sign us up for services. Occasionally some of them will even make a personal solicitation by mail, by e-mail, on the phone, or in person. Legitimate businesses do this for the same reason that scammers do: sometimes someone will take the bait and then “initiate” (as you put it) the handover of something of value. The only difference is that the legitimate businesses give you a product or service in return, whereas the scammers don’t. > [@](#): > > The verification process that **treis** is talking about is something **you initiate** with your bank and the other party, like a brokerage firm in order to link the accounts so you can transfer funds between the two. **You** start the process and only then do they ask for your bank info. I knew exactly what **treis** was asking. Congratulations on your mind-reading abilities. The rest of us had no way of divining from the original post how it was that **treis** came to be “signing up” with a company which wanted his bank password in the first place. The premise in its entirety was just seven words: “Sometimes when signing up with a company…”. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/88 "2011-10-18T21:04:50Z")
Obvious if you know it though. So it should have been obvious if you don’t know it, clearly. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/89 "2011-10-18T21:42:09Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > None of that was abundantly clear in the two line OP of the thread in question. It may have been obvious to someone already familiar with that form of transaction, but that only demonstrate that things are obvious when you know them. > > To someone unfamiliar with that form of transaction, it could easily have been describing a scam, because someone taken in by a scam isn’t guaranteed to describe it coherently anyway. > > Either way, it wasn’t an example of people posting Wags in GQ. Just an example of people getting it wrong. The OP could have been more specific, but I do almost all my banking and bill-paying online so I’m not flabergasted when asked to give out my bank info to an establishment I intend to pay once I’ve requested to be able to do so. The issue I see is that the “you are being scammed” posts continued after **treis** clarified the question. See post 41 for the appropriate response. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/90 "2011-10-18T21:56:28Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > How is that remotely relevant? Lots of legitimate business proposals are also unsolicited. Every day we get bombarded by advertisements from legitimate companies trying to sell us goods and sign us up for services. Occasionally some of them will even make a personal solicitation by mail, by e-mail, on the phone, or in person. Legitimate businesses do this for the same reason that scammers do: sometimes someone will take the bait and then “initiate” (as you put it) the handover of something of value. The only difference is that the legitimate businesses give you a product or service in return, whereas the scammers don’t. > Congratulations on your mind-reading abilities. The rest of us had no way of divining from the original post how it was that **treis** came to be “signing up” with a company which wanted his bank password in the first place. The premise in its entirety was just seven words: “Sometimes when signing up with a company…”. Thanks, I don’t feel all that special but maybe I should. The OP’s title was “Instant Bank Verification - How Does That Work” and while the text of the post itself was vague and maybe misleading if you’ve never linked a bank account before, your first post was utterly false because instant bank verification is a very real thing commonly used by financial institutions and online businesses, which you might have known if you’d bothered to Google it. Business proposal? If you want a brokerage account you have to, you know, fund it. One way you do that is by linking it to your bank account, but it’s not done automatically. You have to request the accounts to be linked and one step in that process is giving them your bank info. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/91 "2011-10-18T22:16:23Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > The OP could have been more specific, but I do almost all my banking and bill-paying online so I’m not flabergasted when asked to give out my bank info to an establishment I intend to pay once I’ve requested to be able to do so. Exactly - obvious if you know it. If you don’t know it, there’s an equally obvious, _but sadly wrong_, answer. The point is that in this case, there’s no trigger to self-correct. Nobody who mistook it as a scam would feel the need to check themselves with Google, because it’s obvious what’s happening (even though what is obvious, is wrong) > [@](#): > > The issue I see is that the “you are being scammed” posts continued after **treis** clarified the question. Hmmm… OK. Still, a little more craft all round would have helped - garbage in, garbage out. > [@](#): > > See post 41 for the appropriate response. The thread is only 31 posts long. Do you mean post 14? ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/92 "2011-10-18T22:24:35Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > The OP’s title was “Instant Bank Verification - How Does That Work” and while the text of the post itself was vague and maybe misleading if you’ve never linked a bank account before, your first post was utterly false because instant bank verification is a very real thing commonly used by financial institutions and online businesses, which you might have known if you’d bothered to Google it. And you would have seen, if you’d bothered to read the whole thread, that as a result of the confusion caused by this vague and misleading post, I did indeed bother to Google it. Curiously, there were no relevant hits from PayPal’s site itself (even when adding “site:paypal.com” to the query); all I could find were third-party references to it. Either PayPal have sensibly discontinued this practice, or else Google is rather unhelpfully returning only those PayPal pages specific to my locale, where this service is unavailabe. > [@](#): > > Business proposal? If you want a brokerage account you have to, you know, fund it. One way you do that is by linking it to your bank account, but it’s not done automatically. You have to request the accounts to be linked and one step in that process is giving them your bank info. I understand the purpose of bank verification. I understand how this particular method works. However, merely understanding these things does not mean you are not being phished. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/93 "2011-10-18T22:30:53Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > See post 41 for the appropriate response. I dunno; I think Post 13 summed it up quite nicely. If you give someone your online banking credentials, it’s a simple matter for them to just log in as you and check whatever it is they need to check, or to execute a computer program to do same. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/94 "2011-10-19T06:17:41Z")
I thought that treis was excessively irritable in the GQ thread and that their pit thread is off base. I thought that the first 3 replies were appropriate. **treis** : The thread is not about the original poster: it’s about the original post. It doesn’t matter that you are not an idiot. It is perfectly possible that you were describing a phishing attempt and perfectly reasonable to warn of such a possibility. You want to steer the thread back by adding elaboration? No problem. But I disagree that the initial posts were extra-topical: they were highly relevant for the problem described, which is separate from the problem experienced by the original poster. Then again, I wouldn’t trust a third party with my password to another financial institution. The possibilities for circular finger pointing in the event of trouble, malicious or otherwise, are too great. Unless of course they accepted explicit liability for problems. Which they wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/95 "2011-10-20T17:14:27Z")
I just regret the GQ thread being closed before I spotted it. I would have posted: “Fucking bank-nets… how do they work?” So I’ll have to settle for posting it here. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/96 "2011-10-20T18:11:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I just regret the GQ thread being closed before I spotted it. I would have posted: > > “Fucking bank-nets… how do they work?” > So I’ll have to settle for posting it here. I’m guessing they use phishing schemes and dishonest employees. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/97 "2011-10-21T06:08:21Z")
In the Feb 2008 issue of _Digital Transactions: Trends in the Electronic Exchange of Value_, George F. Thomas of Radix Consulting admonishes: “Non-account-holding banks are starting to ask consumers for their passwords and other log-on credentials to make sure they own the accounts they’re using to make payments. At a time of massive data breaches, this is a dangerous practice that should stop now.” > [@George F. Thomas](#): > > After all, when a trusted entity like a financial institution asks its customers for their log-on credentials at another > institution, most customers probably would not think twice about it because the request is coming from a trusted party. > > But a requesting financial institution should be able to answer some questions, such as: > X Who has access to the log-in credentials at the financial institution or service provider? > X How many people can see it? > X How is it protected? > X How long is it maintained? > X Who has the liability? > X Who has the reputation risk? > X Do you want your customers giving their log-on information to > other institutions? > > The answer to the last answer should be a resounding “no.” Even if all the cool kids are doing instant account verification, think twice. I see that some of the language by at least one of the providers of this “service” is pretty alarming: it involves granting them limited power of attorney! Wow. I’m sticking with the professional advice. I extend my thanks to the first 3 posters of that thread who advised us of some of the risks in this security framework, though not all. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/98 "2011-10-21T06:51:05Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > In the Feb 2008 issue of _Digital Transactions: Trends in the Electronic Exchange of Value_, George F. Thomas of Radix Consulting admonishes: That’s some great info, except the OP didn’t ask if anyone thought it was risky or if anyone thought it was a scam. They stated that institutions are using this practice, and asked simply: ‘how does it work’? Any answers involving phishing, scamming, security experts saying it is a bad idea to do it, etc. aren’t appropriate in the context of GQ and this OP. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I extend my thanks to the first 3 posters of that thread who advised us of some of the risks in this security framework, though not all. GQ isn’t for advice, I think that is the point. Others reading the thread shouldn’t be hoping to learn people’s opinions on the wisdom of the practice, but rather “how it works”. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/99 "2011-10-21T18:11:09Z")
I’m sure I’m guilty of it, but when I am offering a WAG or apparent tangential response I do try to a) make sure it is clear that this is what it is, and b) why I’m sharing it anyway (maybe I think it will expand into a useful area or provide a data point that will allow someone else to find an answer. But sometimes I just get caught up in wanting to say something and forget where I’m posting. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/100 "2012-02-16T17:25:12Z")
Psychonaut. Apparently you still don’t know wtf you’re talking about. Your lame attempts at junior modding make you look even [more like an ass.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=642155&page=2) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701.md?page=6)