theguardian.com
QR Code Phishing Scam "Quishing" Exploits Parking Payments
A new phishing scam called "quishing" uses fake QR codes near parking payment machines to steal users' financial and personal information, with one victim losing £13,000; reports of such scams have more than doubled in the UK since 2024.
- What is the impact of the rise in quishing scams on individuals and financial institutions?
- A new type of QR code phishing scam, called "quishing," targets parking payment systems. Fraudsters place fake QR codes near legitimate payment machines, redirecting users to fraudulent websites that steal payment and personal information. One victim incurred £13,000 in debt due to such a scam.
- How are fraudsters using quishing to exploit the increasing popularity of app-based parking payments?
- The rise in app-based parking payments has created opportunities for quishing scams. In 2024, the UK saw 1,386 reports of QR code scams, more than doubling from the previous year, and 502 reports in the first three months of 2025 alone. This increase highlights the growing problem and difficulty in tracking the full extent of the fraud due to underreporting.
- What security measures can be implemented to mitigate the risks associated with quishing scams in the future?
- The significant increase in quishing scams emphasizes the need for improved public awareness and security measures. Parking authorities and banks should implement stronger verification processes and educational campaigns to protect users from these increasingly sophisticated attacks. Future preventative measures could include QR code authentication systems or enhanced fraud detection technologies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the negative impact of "quishing" through vivid examples of victim experiences and escalating statistics. This creates a sense of urgency and threat, which could disproportionately influence reader perception of the risk associated with QR code payments compared to other payment methods. The headline itself contributes to this framing by immediately highlighting the negative aspect.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotive language like "double whammy" and describes the fraudsters' actions as "running up £13,000 worth of debt." While this makes the article engaging, it also leans towards sensationalism, potentially exaggerating the overall threat. More neutral language could improve objectivity. For instance, instead of "double whammy," the impact could be described as "significant financial losses.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the rise of "quishing" and its impact, but omits discussion of preventative measures taken by parking companies or regulatory bodies to combat this type of fraud. There is no mention of any technological solutions being developed to verify the authenticity of QR codes, or educational campaigns aimed at raising public awareness. This omission could leave readers feeling vulnerable and lacking in actionable advice beyond personal caution.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between legitimate parking payment methods and fraudulent "quishing" attempts. While this highlights the threat, it overlooks the possibility of other fraudulent schemes targeting parking payments, such as email phishing or fraudulent websites accessed through non-QR methods. This simplification could inadvertently downplay the broader scope of parking payment fraud.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't exhibit overt gender bias in its language or representation. However, it could benefit from including diverse examples of victims to avoid any potential implicit biases in reader perception.
Sustainable Development Goals
The rise of quishing scams disproportionately affects vulnerable populations who may be less tech-savvy or financially secure, exacerbating existing inequalities. Victims can suffer significant financial losses, leading to increased debt and hardship.