The Art of the Con (37 page)

In case it's still not clear, imagine the entire deck is in play and that only the queen of hearts was the winner. If I let you choose one at random (unseen) and I then threw away fifty cards that definitely were not the queen of hearts, leaving just one—what are the chances that the only card I didn't throw away is the winning queen? Do you think I've got the queen or do you think it's more likely that you managed to somehow pick it from the fifty-two options at the beginning? Now would you switch?

The bigger the number of losing cards, the clearer it should be that switching in the second round is the best strategy.

Now let's return to the classic version with just three choices. As with the examples above, there are more losers than winners. Once you make your initial choice, there are two cards remaining and the odds clearly state that the winner is more likely to be one of the other two. Think of your own choice as an isolated group and the remaining cards as a second group. A moment ago, you knew that the other group had double the odds of containing the winner and now, thanks to the intervention of the performer, the losing options from the other group have been identified, leaving just one card that retains the same odds of
being a winner
as the entire group had of
containing the winner
.

The conscious nature of the performer's procedure ensures that only losing cards are turned over after your initial selection, but if this was a random selection by the performer, switching offers no advantage because one time in three, the randomly flipped card will be a queen. It is only when the performer knows which card to expose that the advantage exists.

Once the performer has intervened and revealed a losing option in that other group, he has given you a huge advantage, but only if you understand how and why to take it. As the Monty Hall Problem shows, it would be very easy to tell a player that sticking with their original choice is as good as switching. Even mathematicians have struggled to recognize why changing doubles the odds of success. This makes that lie easy to believe and that's a powerful tool for a con artist or under-handed business.

On the Internet a related form of chicanery has become so common that most of us encounter examples on a daily basis. By playing online transactions as a game, options can be restricted, choices manipulated, and positive outcomes for the customer disguised by companies taking an unfair advantage.

Sound familiar?

The term “Dark Patterns” refers to user interfaces that are deliberately designed to trick people. Some of the largest companies in the world employ subtle methods to misdirect users from certain choices on a page or build those pages with the intent of concealing certain elements while technically including legally required options or notices.

These ploys have evolved from blatant deceptions into subtle arrangements based on knowing how people interact with a form or page, the order in which their attention is directed, and how elements become more or less noticeable.

As a rule, people tend to take the easiest option when confronted with any unfamiliar interface; their choices are usually guided by the clearest, most obvious path, from the beginning to the end of a process.

Any procedure where additional costs can be incurred or choices restricted is susceptible to these questionable techniques. Online forms for services like insurance, air travel, car rental, and subscriptions will often try to deliberately manipulate the user toward a preferred outcome. Even extremely savvy users can miss an option that has either been preselected or camouflaged.

A simple example would be an option to receive newsletters that is preselected as “yes” but the “tick box” option is placed after the “continue” button that advances the user to the next page. Designers might claim this as an innocent mistake; that they didn't consider people who tend to follow a linear path and would click “continue” before examining the rest of the page. Great care goes into the design of every website at that level and very little happens by accident.

Sometimes advertisements are disguised to look like part of the site they inhabit in order to sucker people into clicking onto other pages. If you have ever tried to download software from certain sites, you will have encountered the bogus “download” button. In one example I found eight identical green download buttons on one page and only one of them was for the software I actually wanted. The others were for products I definitely did not want. I would caution anybody about using any services from any company who needs to trick people into installing their software.

Many people will accept a three-dollar charge rather than spend a little extra time locating the correct button or drop-down menu, because the simplest path is usually the most attractive (as con artists know well). Large companies can make huge profits from small variations in prices, so any way they can build an advantage into these processes is worthwhile.

The website
www.darkpatterns.org
lists dozens of examples, categorized with names such as “bait and switch,” “misdirection,” and “trick questions.” The practice has become more sophisticated over time. On many sites it's likely that an option is hidden in plain sight or strategically placed to be ignored. It's a clear example of an advantage play on the part of companies that employ such methods. They are increasing the odds of making higher profits simply by observing how people navigate and placing elements accordingly.

The ability to look at any transaction as a game to be won or lost is invaluable; your first question should always be “what is the best way to secure a positive outcome?” In a casino, it's possible to win even when the odds are against you (and of course, vice-versa), but in the real world, it's easier to predict how things should work out. Your second question should be, “who has the best of it?” As a customer, that will usually be the provider since their job is to make a profit, and there's nothing wrong with this unless they are consciously trying to make more than is reasonable.

As consumers, we can learn to identify the most beneficial options in any marketplace. In most cases, this is a matter of balancing cost and commitment or comparing offers to find the best deal. The trick is to spot the advantages being played against us and to negotiate the best possible variation based on the options available.

There is a point where some deals cross the bridge between grift and graft. I start to become concerned when a company wants me to believe that I have the edge, since any business that gives away its profit margin is doomed to fail. In these circumstances I always look for the catch that will reverse my fortune or throw me into a deep hole without a rope to climb out.

*
Monty Hall was the host of
Let's Make a Deal
, a popular game show that aired in the 1960s and 1970s.

A
lex approached our fifth mark as he left the store, showed him a fake ID, and claimed to be a member of the Metropolitan Police. Immediately, the mark was keen to comply or resolve any misunderstanding; Alex walked him over to me so I could feed him the story.

“Did you use your credit card today, sir?” I asked.

“Yes.”

“We are currently monitoring this store because a member of staff is suspected of stealing customer's details . . .”

At this point, Jess called over the radio to ask if we had intercepted someone of the mark's description. She was pretending to be another officer inside the store but was actually sitting in a van across the parking lot, simply describing whomever we had stopped at that time. The mark heard this and any suspicion that we were not the real police quickly evaporated.

“This is just a formality,” I continued, “but we need anyone who used their card at the suspect's register to give us their details so we can ensure your information doesn't go online and so we can determine whether your details have been stolen when we make the arrest.”

The victim nodded as I handed him a clipboard, requesting that he fill out a form with all of the pertinent details. Meanwhile, Alex found another victim and brought him over so we could repeat the con.

We were emulating a scam that is all too common online and has cost banks, credit card companies, and their customers billions of dollars. After a few minutes we had credit card numbers, security codes, and addresses from a dozen people, not one of whom ever questioned our legitimacy. Our real-live reconstruction targeting real victims was so successful that within a few minutes we had more marks than we could possibly use on the show; it remains one of the simplest scams that I've ever filmed.

The objective of
The Real Hustle
, as stated at the beginning of every episode, was to reveal and expose scams that have actually happened. In this case, I seriously doubt that credit card numbers would be stolen by two hustlers dressed in suits outside the Home Depot, because it's too exposed and is almost certain to result in the perpetrators being arrested or pursued.

Our reconstruction of this online scam had the benefit of being able to secure confidence quickly with suits, a radio, and some fake IDs just as some scammers spoof web pages to look exactly like real sites operated by well-known companies or institutions. As we discovered, people are quick to accept something on face value, especially when plunged into a worrying scenario. We could probably have collected people's private information all day, complete with signatures and all the data we would need to steal their money or identity. It was terrifyingly easy.

The evolution of con games has largely depended on certain mechanisms in society: the ways in which people meet and interact. The initial approach has a strong effect on how quickly or easily a potential mark is hooked; as society changes, hustlers must learn to adapt their methods. In the history of cons and scams, the introduction of the Internet as a means to target new victims has been the deceiver's equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Suddenly, the con game became a numbers game and a new generation of hustlers was born.

A system can only be as strong as its weakest component, and in most cases, the human element is the first link to break. Any form of security needs well-trained and informed people to interact and implement a methodology. Any mistake or failure at the human level might result in the system being compromised. While many hackers target software or hardware to identify flaws, the “meatware” (people) is where crooks usually find the easy money.

On the Internet, people are given access to millions of systems for legitimate purposes, but their means of access can expose both the user and provider when data is stolen and abused. The problem is that complexity is often needed to create more secure procedures, but companies who deal with customers online want to offer convenience and ease of use, thereby reducing the number of steps to access a seemingly secure service. This is clearly at odds with the objective of absolute security since fewer barriers for the user means less information that a scammer needs to steal.