Applying Forcing Functions to Solving the Problem of Scams and Reducing the Number of Scam Victims

What is a Forcing Function?

A forcing function is a mechanism that compels or strongly influences behavior, often by altering incentives or constraints. If we apply this concept to reducing scamming of ordinary people, potential forcing functions could involve economic deterrents, technological safeguards, and behavioral nudges that make scamming less profitable or more difficult.

The Objective: Reduce Scams by 95%

Reducing scams by 95% over the next two years is an ambitious but necessary objective, requiring a multi-layered approach that combines legal, technological, financial, and social interventions. The core strategy must focus on eliminating the economic viability of scams, making fraudulent activities more difficult to execute while simultaneously increasing the awareness and resilience of potential victims. Governments, financial institutions, and tech companies must collaborate to implement real-time scam detection systems, mandatory fraud verification steps, and AI-driven monitoring of transactions and communications. Additionally, fast-tracking prosecution, increasing financial penalties, and improving cross-border law enforcement cooperation would significantly disrupt scam networks and deter new fraudsters from entering the space.

On the consumer side, automated scam awareness training, personalized fraud alerts, and enhanced financial security measures can drastically reduce victim susceptibility. Financial institutions could introduce delayed transaction approvals for high-risk payments, while phone carriers and email providers could automatically flag and block scam-related messages before they reach users. A publicly accessible scammer registry and a stronger social stigma against fraud could further erode the appeal of scams as a low-risk, high-reward enterprise. By implementing a coordinated, global, and technologically advanced fraud prevention strategy, it is possible to eliminate the majority of scam operations and achieve a 95% reduction in scam-related losses within two years.

Partnerships Against Scams

Achieving a 95% reduction in scams over the next two years will require genuine, coordinated partnerships between all key stakeholders, including governments, financial institutions, technology companies, law enforcement, and consumer advocacy groups. Fragmented efforts and isolated policies will not be enough; instead, there must be seamless collaboration to share real-time fraud intelligence, implement unified scam detection systems, and standardize security protocols across industries. Governments must enforce stronger legal frameworks and cross-border cooperation, while banks and payment platforms need to enhance verification processes and introduce proactive scam prevention tools. Meanwhile, social media platforms, telecom providers, and messaging apps must take greater responsibility in detecting and blocking fraudulent activities before they reach potential victims. Consumer education initiatives must be widely deployed, ensuring that people are equipped with the knowledge to recognize and avoid scams. Only through true multi-stakeholder partnerships—where every entity is actively engaged and accountable—can we create an ecosystem where scamming becomes unprofitable, unsustainable, and nearly impossible to execute.

Forcing Functions to Reduce Scams

Here are some potential forcing functions to reduce scams:

Economic Forcing Functions: Reducing the Incentive to Scam

Harsher Financial Penalties: Increasing seizure of assets, heavier fines, and financial restitution for convicted scammers could make scamming less profitable.

Raising the Cost of Entry for Scammers: Requiring more stringent identity verification for online financial transactions (such as mandatory facial recognition or government ID checks) would increase the cost and effort needed to set up scam operations.

Guaranteed Financial Reimbursement for Scam Victims: If banks and financial institutions were required to reimburse victims, they would have an economic incentive to invest heavily in fraud prevention, reducing scams overall.

Legal and Law Enforcement Forcing Functions

Fast-Track Prosecution of Scammers: Establishing a dedicated cybercrime court with rapid sentencing could serve as a strong deterrent.

Public Registries of Convicted Scammers: Similar to sex offender registries, known scammers could be listed publicly to warn potential victims.

International Collaboration on Scam Crackdowns: Since many scams originate overseas, greater cross-border law enforcement cooperation could increase scammer arrests and make international scamming riskier.

Technological Forcing Functions: Making Scamming More Difficult

AI-Based Scam Detection in Communications: Implementing real-time AI scam detection in phone calls, emails, and messages could alert potential victims before they fall prey.

Mandatory Fraud Warnings Before Sending Large Transactions: Similar to “Are you sure you want to delete this file?” prompts, banking apps could require an additional verification step (such as a short video call with a fraud officer) before approving large, unusual transactions.

Voice and Video Authentication for High-Risk Transactions: Scammers often impersonate officials or loved ones. Real-time voice or video authentication could make social engineering scams far more difficult.

Social and Psychological Forcing Functions: Reducing Victim Susceptibility

Government-Backed Scam Awareness Certification: Similar to driver’s licenses, citizens could be required to take basic scam awareness training to obtain certain financial services.

Automated Scam Simulation Programs: Financial institutions could periodically simulate scam attempts on customers, teaching them to recognize fraudulent tactics before they encounter a real scammer.

Social Stigma for Known Scammers: Making scamming as socially unacceptable as theft could discourage would-be fraudsters from engaging in these activities.

Financial System Forcing Functions

AI-Driven Fraud-Proof Banking: Banks could implement a scam-proof financial architecture where payments cannot be processed without strict multi-layer verification.

Delays for First-Time Large Transactions to New Recipients: Any first-time transaction over a certain amount (e.g., $5,000) to an unverified recipient could be held for 24 hours with an option to cancel if fraud is suspected.

Further Activities Will Be Required

To achieve a 95% reduction in scams within two years, additional forcing functions and targeted activities should focus on enhancing enforcement, blocking scam operations at the source, increasing consumer resilience, and leveraging technology to make scams unworkable. Here are some critical additions to the existing list of strategies:

Legal and Law Enforcement Enhancements

Global Scam Crackdown Task Force

• • • Establish a dedicated international task force that focuses solely on dismantling scam networks, particularly in high-scam regions (e.g., call centers in certain countries).
    • Facilitate real-time cooperation between law enforcement agencies worldwide.

Severe Legal Consequences for Scam Operators

• • • Increase criminal sentences and financial penalties for those running scam operations.
    • Implement extradition treaties for scam-related crimes to ensure fraudsters cannot evade justice.

Corporate Liability for Enabling Scams

• • • Impose fines on telecom companies, payment processors, and social media platforms that fail to prevent scams on their networks.
    • Require them to implement mandatory fraud detection systems.

Technological Disruptions to Scam Operations

AI-Powered Scam Interception in Communication Platforms

• • • Deploy AI-driven scam detection and blocking across email, SMS, phone calls, and social media.
    • Create automated alerts for high-risk scam phrases to warn users in real-time.

Decentralized Fraud Reporting Database

• • • Build a global scammer blacklist accessible to financial institutions, law enforcement, and telecom providers.
    • Enable users to report scam attempts instantly for broader public awareness.

Blockchain-Based Identity Verification for High-Risk Transactions

• • • Use blockchain technology to verify identities in major financial transactions to reduce fraudulent accounts.
    • Require verified, non-spoofable credentials for major purchases or transfers.

Consumer Protection and Education at Scale

Mandatory Scam Prevention Training for Bank and Payment App Users

• • • Require all banking and payment app users to complete basic scam awareness training before being allowed to make large transfers.
    • Provide built-in educational pop-ups for users attempting to send money to unfamiliar accounts.

Automated Consumer Scam Simulations

• • • Run periodic scam simulation tests for individuals, similar to corporate phishing tests.
    • Alert people if they fall for a test scam and provide immediate education.

Standardized Delayed Processing for High-Risk Transactions

• • • Implement 24-48 hour delays for first-time large transfers, giving people time to cancel fraudulent payments.
    • Require an additional verification step (e.g., video authentication) for payments flagged as high-risk.

Disrupting the Financial Infrastructure of Scammers

Preemptive Freezing of Scammer Bank Accounts

• • • Create global intelligence-sharing agreements to preemptively freeze bank accounts used in scams before large amounts are withdrawn.
    • Enable real-time tracking of scam-related financial transactions.

Banning High-Risk Payment Methods for Unverified Users

• • • Restrict cryptocurrency, wire transfers, and prepaid cards for unverified individuals.
    • Require enhanced ID verification for cash-based financial transactions.

Criminalizing the Purchase and Sale of “Mule” Accounts

• • • Enforce strict penalties for individuals selling their bank accounts or identities to scammers.
    • Increase monitoring of account takeovers and suspicious financial activity.

Public Awareness and Social Engineering Countermeasures

Media Campaigns Exposing Scam Tactics

• • • Launch high-profile, government-backed awareness campaigns showing real scammer tactics and victim stories.
    • Regularly update the public with new scam trends and prevention tips.

Celebrity and Influencer-Led Anti-Scam Initiatives

• • • Recruit popular influencers and public figures to create scam-awareness content for social media and video platforms.
    • Develop viral content that educates people about scams in engaging ways.

Strong Social Stigma Against Scamming

• • • Implement a cultural shift where scamming is seen as a deeply dishonorable act.
    • Run anti-scam messaging in schools, workplaces, and community centers to make participation in fraud less socially acceptable.

A 95% reduction in scams is achievable if governments, tech companies, financial institutions, and consumers work together to disrupt scam operations, remove economic incentives for scammers, and increase resilience among potential victims. By combining legal enforcement, AI-driven fraud prevention, financial system safeguards, and large-scale consumer education, scams can become unprofitable, high-risk, and ultimately unsustainable.

Conclusion

A true forcing function against scams would reduce the profitability of scamming, increase the risk of getting caught, and make ordinary people less susceptible to deception. By combining legal, financial, technological, and behavioral strategies, society could create a systemic deterrent to scammers—forcing them to either abandon their schemes or take on significant risks and costs in order to continue.

References

The concept of forcing functions originates from human factors engineering and systems design, where it is used to describe mechanisms that prevent errors or enforce specific behaviors. The concept of ‘Forcing Functions’ emerged from research in industrial design, ergonomics, and cognitive psychology.

Key Origins and Influences:

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) & Industrial Design

• • • The concept was widely used in the 1960s and 1970s in industrial design to create error-proof systems.
    • Donald Norman, a cognitive scientist and usability expert, popularized the term in his 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things, explaining how forcing functions prevent mistakes (e.g., how a microwave won’t operate unless the door is closed).

Forcing Functions in Psychology and Behavior Design

• • • The idea aligns with B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist theories, where external conditions shape behavior through reinforcement or constraints.
    • In Nudge Theory, developed by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, policies act as forcing functions to guide better choices without restricting freedom.

Forcing Functions in Engineering and Aviation

• • • The concept was integrated into aviation safety, where cockpit designs include forcing functions to prevent human error (e.g., requiring landing gear checks before descent).
    • It is also a key principle in software engineering and cybersecurity, where constraints enforce secure user behavior.

Modern Use Across Industries

Today, forcing functions are widely used in:

• • • Software design (e.g., two-factor authentication to prevent unauthorized access).
    • Healthcare (e.g., requiring barcode scans before administering medication).
    • Finance & fraud prevention (e.g., requiring multi-step verification for high-risk transactions).

While forcing functions have no single inventor, their roots trace back to engineering, psychology, and design principles. The concept was refined through the work of Donald Norman in usability design, B.F. Skinner in behaviorism, and later by Thaler & Sunstein in behavioral economics. It remains a powerful tool for shaping behavior and reducing errors across many fields.