It's good to have this opportunity, but my schedule will probably not let me participate live on Wednesday. I presume I'll be able to pick up the discussion subsequently.
The question I'd like to ask is what giffgaff can do in the future to ensure PAYG credit on an account can be ringfenced and used only for specific purposes that the member chooses.
The example that springs to mind is payforit charges. Giffgaff has so far insisted that it's not possible to choose to disable payforit, yet we know that it's not imposible.
Already a payforit fraudster cannot get money from a giffgaff member if the member has not credit outside their goodybag. But many giffgaff members need credit for other purposes, so having no credit isn't a practical way to solve the problem. But if that credit were properly ringfenced to be used only for specified purposes and the member had not defined payforit as a permitted purpose, when a fraudster attempts a bogus payforit charge, that charge would fail. That method of failing a payforit charge already exists. It just needs for the member to stipulate what purposes credit on the account can be used for, and if the member has not chosen payforit as one of those purposes, the payment should fail exactly as it does at present when the member doesn't have credit.
We can discuss the actual ringfencing categories later, but what's needed initially is management committment to the ringfencing concept as a way of managing the user's credit and ensuring the user has full choice over whether credit is used for any particular service.
[Edit] I've just spotted a timely post from @muggles708 at https://www.surecloud.com/sc-blog/bbc-watchdog-research-paper-payforit where it is revealed:
that according to its investigation, the bulk of payforit transactions appear to be fraudulent, andthat o2, EE, vodaphone and tesco all implement a Charge to Bill Bar which prevents payforit charges -- but giffgaff does not