10 ms·

This is also a problem with Square, and Stripe, and Paypal ... it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. Basically, if there was customer support that could fi

This is also a problem with Square, and Stripe, and Paypal ... it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. Basically, if there was customer support that could fix the problem, then skilled scammers can get money and control out of them. They can do it a lot better than you can get your stuff re-enabled, they know just when to say what to whom. Verizon just accepts the inefficiency, and also over-charges random customers, sometimes hands over control of a phone number to a scammer so they can get auth codes over SMS, has clueless support, etc. Google hasn't accepted this way of the world yet (but in scaling up the support has necessarily become disempowered). It is very frustrating. It's a nature of things going mass-market. Just a few people, everything can be nice. Too many people, scams and fraud become big problems.

wyldfire 8y ago
> This is also a problem with Square, and Stripe, and Paypal ... it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. It's compounded by the fact that Google has the primary element of your 21st century identity: your email address.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  I recommend anyone who likes Gmail to use your own domain name@example.com and just forward all messages to your Gmail address. Only give out your own example.com email and set it as the reply to. Even the cheap budget registrars offer email forwarding for free and I have never had any trouble. This gives you the benefits of free Gmail without handing your entire life over to them. At least with a tld there is some due process and rules to protect you.
  - neetdeth 8y ago
    Are there actually rules and due process? I was under the impression that it's just a convention that the registrar won't seize your domain unless they really, really dislike you. edit: I shouldn't be oblique in my comments. I'm of course referring to the whole Daily Stormer fiasco.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      It becomes a legal and business decision for the registrar. Most serve at the pleasure of a formal contract with their TLD control entity (e.g. ICANN). Ultimately, if you were to sue them, there's a root document of legal responsibilities and behavior to point to. In contrast to whatever emphemeral TOS bullshit Google feels like tossing out. And furthermore, unlike Google, they can't really just ignore you. Or, to put it another way, VISA, American Airlines, Coke, etc also have an interest in maintaining legal ownership of domains. They could care less about Google accounts.
      - cookiecaper 8y ago
        > Ultimately, if you were to sue them, there's a root document of legal responsibilities and behavior to point to. But actually if you were to sue them, wouldn't the case be dismissed for lack of standing? If you're not a party to the dispute you can't sue (or rather, you can't sue and actually have your case proceed). You'd probably need to convince ICANN that they need to sue, which is already a much trickier position.
  - dpark 8y ago
    You’ll find that if you do this, you start getting emails directly to your gmail anyway. I never give out my gmail address, but I use gmail and they happily report my gmail address when they send email as my “real” account. (Both email addresses are included in emails I send.) And upstream they are happy to respond to that gmail account when people hit the reply button. So I have tons of people who would essentially seem my contact as a black hole if I abandoned my gmail address at this point, because Google seems to have deliberately crafted their clients to prefer the gmail address rather than the “real” address. Essentially treating the gmail address as if it’s a reply-to.
    - velosol 8y ago
      It's because of Google's use of 'From' and 'Sender' headers in gmail. If you setup an SMTP server to send your emails from for your @example.com address then Google won't mess around and the emails appear to actually come from the email address you want out there, not your @gmail.com.
      - jrobn 8y ago
        Or just pay Fastmail $30 a year for such an important 21st century utility such that e-mail is. I don't use gmail for anything else except throwaway accounts. Who wants to run an SMTP server.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
        Crazy how many people don’t view email as a critical part of life infrastructure worth paying for.
      - dpark 8y ago
        You can actually set up gmail to send through an external server? I had no idea they’d support that. Running an SMTP server is absolutely not something I’m willing to do, though. Aside from the general setup/maintenance hassle, all the big companies are aggressive at blocking spam and private SMTP servers are just tough to keep unblocked these days (or so I read).
  - slyall 8y ago
    I wouldn't advise doing this. Forwarding all your email from one provider to another doesn't really work in today's Internet. The problem is that from gmail's point of view your registrar is now sending it a lot of spam. So it'll block the registrar or filter it more aggressively. Also if you get email from a 3rd party who uses domain-keys, spf, etc (eg just about everyone) then those emails will be failing all the checks when gmail receives them.
    - mrb 8y ago
      You misunderstand jjeaff. He suggests making the MX of yourdomain.tld point to Gmail's MTAs. This is what he means by "forwarding email". This is the best-practice way to do it and works perfectly well.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      This is inaccurate. I have namecheap forward all of my email from *@my-domain-name.com to my.name@gmail.com. Works no problem, has for several years. Prepared for the eventual switch to FastMail when they support multi-label messages. The only messages that end up in my spam folder are spam for knock off online pharmacies.
      - slyall 8y ago
        Hmm [goes off and does more research]. Okay, it appears this is so common that gmail has some guidelines that if people follow they are are usually okay: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365?hl=en It does look like namecheap filters spam aggressively so possibly that helps. In general be careful for the reasons I mention. But it looks like if you follow the guidelines with gmail then you'll be good. Sorry for the inaccurate information.
    - Evidlo 8y ago
      I've been doing this for years without any trouble.
  - stolsvik 8y ago
    Agree, and I've been doing this for about a decade with very little problem. (Google do add both a Sender and From, with the Sender being your GMail-address. But that has not been a problem.)
  - Const-me 8y ago
    DNS aren't too reliable. Stealing your own domain is easier than stealing google's own domain. If you use that e-mail for primary ID, getting even temporary control on your domain allows stealing all your accounts.
- hcurtiss 8y ago
  I'm increasingly convinced it's your cell phone number (i.e., all the IM services using SMS authentication). And when you're using Google Fi, they have that too.
stephenhuey 8y ago
At the very least, they should figure out how to empower somebody in the support structure. This happened to me with that silly Cash app from Square (the Twitter handle is very cutesy in its interactions with people). It seemed kinda cool in how it let us come up with our own handle for people to send us money for our wedding, but left such a terrible taste in my mouth when everyone told me it wasn't working and Square shut down my account with no explanation. Why do millions of people depend on that? I want options like that to exist, but if I really need to depend on people being able to give me money, I'm just going to tell them to send it via my Chase account since for all its problems, Chase is a mature business. Maybe I'd use an Emoji app from Square just to share some giggles with people, but a money app from Square??? Nope, their brand lost my trust at the worst possible moment.
fastball 8y ago
I mean, crypto is a payment system that won't kick you off for fraud.
- lyall 8y ago
  Even if it's deserved ;)
  - akimball 8y ago
    Let's make human rights inalienable.
- rrdharan 8y ago
  The DAO hack remediation has determined that was a lie.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Effectively reversing the transaction isn't the same as not letting you buy anything ever again.
  - fastball 8y ago
    That was a reversal of fraud, nobody was banned from the Ethereum network (because nobody can be banned from the network).
kevincennis 8y ago
I've actually had decent luck getting Stripe to un-blacklist subscribers that they incorrectly identified as fraudsters. But it takes a ton of back-and-forth with support reps who generally don't even know or believe you that blacklisting exists (sometimes just an email address, not a specific card, was blocked) – and in one case we didn't get a resolution until the customer got the CA Attorney General to write Stripe's general counsel.
saurik 8y ago
PayPal has sales representatives and technical support people and you can actually deal with them, so I am not sure the premise is right... ...but the core problem is this argument is in reverse anyway: if I get banned from Bank of America somehow I don't lose access to the concept of a card that lets me pay for my Verizon account, and in the worst case scenario I can send them a check. I have had serious issues with Verizon paying for my account before (they both claimed I was behind on payments but would not accept money without a PIN number, which I could only get by verifying my address using a post card that would take forever), but it wasn't a catch-22 scenario where I lose my phone number as there is somehow literally no way to pay for their service again.
- fernly 8y ago
  Are you sure about PayPal? Because I believe I have read quite a few pathetic stories -- similar in tone to the posted article about Google Fi -- about PayPal accounts being frozen with no recourse, for example[1]. And PayPal settled a class-action lawsuit on just this topic[2]. [1] http://www.paypalwarning.com/paypal-frozen-account/ http://www.paypalwarning.com/paypal-frozen-account/ [2] https://www.doctorofcredit.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-for-frozen-or-suspended-accounts-up-to-4-mil-settlement/ https://www.doctorofcredit.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-f...
  - taneq 8y ago
    I thought PayPal's issues were on the receiver side rather than the payer side? Making payments seems OK, it's just if you use PayPal to receive payments, they can arbitrarily freeze your funds for 6 months whenever they feel like it.
    - drdaeman 8y ago
      Not always. I've recently moved to the US, and I wanted to get myself a Spitify account (hah). I had to wait for SSN for a few weeks, so no bank account yet - my only option was a prepaid Visa card. Bought one at QFC, used it with PayPal (a fresh account, as my old one is tied to another country) - and found it blocked the next day. PayPal had asked for an ID and address confirmation. I had my passport, but no utility bill (I was still using Airbnb, just looking for a long-term place to live). Asked support if there's anything I can do - and got nothing useful besides "we need a driver license or utility bill", even though I specifically asked what else could I provide if I don't have either of those (I had a mailing address from a forwarding company). Account was unusable, all I could do with it was logging in :) Then I've rented apartments and tried to send them a lease contract (with my full name and address) and it was rejected. Not an utility bill, right. Asked support about it, got no reply at all. Waited for a month, got electricity bill, and only then my account was unlocked. So, anything unusual - and even if you don't receive any money, you account could be blocked.
mjevans 8y ago
I believe these issues could be solved by actually taxing corporations and providing the service they clearly so desperately need. An /actual/ (inter)national ID and Identity verification service. One where disputes about identity and authorization can be escalated somewhere that makes sense, to the jurisdictions issuing these IDs. Ideally someone should be able to go to a police station (locally for local IDs, if on vacation/out of hometown in liaison between departments) and have their identity verified in a trusted way, and that verification reported as pass/fail to a third party whom is asking. This would also be the way of officially disputing fraudulent uses of identity; they would be reported via the same actions, but as a customer initiation (and statement of legal testimony taken in a case that would then be opened and reported to the involved parties). BTW, such a system SHOULD also include address resolution, for physical mail, voice, and electronic services (any sub-name actually). I would LOVE to only update my address in ONE place when I move, instead of trying to remember everyone I've ever given it to.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The problem with centralized identification is that it doesn't actually solve anything, it only outsources it to a less security-competent entity which would be an even bigger target for fraud and corruption. Creating one single place to change your address gives the attacker one single place to change your address. Compromise one system, bribe one police officer or DMV employee, get nation-wide root access to everything. And how does it even solve the problem? The problem isn't that Google doesn't know whether you're John Smith. It's that Google thinks John Smith is a scammer they won't do business with, and they aren't willing to spend their resources helping you to clear your name.
  - lolc 8y ago
    Well, fraud would still happen. The problem from the fraudsters point of view are manifold though: They have to actually deal with the police in person. Sending copies of identity documents by mail is not as involved as personally going to a police station. The risks are very different. Similarily, you can have corruption at phone carriers and credit-card companies too. What matters is the audit-chain. If a police officer keeps id-ing fraudsters they won't be in the job for long. That public servants are more corrupt and less competent than the corporate employees one depends on is not a universal experience. Not for me anyway.
krferriter 8y ago
They need to require better identity-proofing methods. To open a bank account at many banks you need to physically show up at one of the bank locations and present physical original copies of identification documents. Allowing people to submit documents online is not good enough. After the identity has been proven, then from that point on you can offer online services, but the initial account creation needs to be done offline.
njarboe 8y ago
It is too bad that I can't pay $50 and/or go somewhere in person to try and solve serious problems. This would eliminate most scammers and give people a way to get something done when it is really serious. I would guess this is not done because the PR hit for charging to talk to a person would be bigger than just ignoring certain people's problems (or companies don't want to have divisions that make more money when the rest of the company screws up, but I doubt that).
gamblor956 8y ago
Have to chime in here: not a problem with Paypal. I've actually gone through this process, spoke with a real human being, and got things resolved in about 15 min...
- wxz 8y ago
  I completely disagree. I've had the same problem with PayPal and Venmo. At some point, if anything goes wrong, they just say their security system has flagged you and there is nothing they can do. They can't even tell you the issue. You just have to wait and hope it eventually clears you, hope it doesn't flag you the next time you do it (which it probably will somewhere in the algorithm, since you've been flagged before) or close/cancel your account.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I guess this is one of those times where it helps to be a lawyer... As a money transmitter they have extra obligations and a quick call to the regulator can resolve issues relatively quickly (if you're a US citizen and live in the US).
gameswithgo 8y ago
>it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. credit card companies and traditional banks and credit unions handle it fine. >Too many people, scams and fraud become big problems. if the solution to fraud is un-fixable account freezes, you have not actually solved anything. It is fraud itself.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  It fixes one "fraud" path - where somebody seizes control of an account and holds it for ransom. Since the account itself is effectively destroyed by any flagging, it's then of no use as a hostage. An account that is flagged in any way is no longer of any use at all, no point to taking them over. Of course, a scammer could threaten to destroy your accounts, and can do so very easily and credibly... So that's not exactly a huge improvement.
- MyNameIsFred 8y ago
  They most certainly do not "handle it just fine". They are highly scammable, they know it, and it's "solved" my moving as much of the burden and repercussions onto the consumer as possible. I've had my identity stolen, and both my wife and I have been mistaken for somebody else. There ARE way to move past this condition (inline with Google Pay, apparently), but it's just done via trust. Or apathy. Or acceptable risk. Or some combination thereof. It never truly goes away.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    Huh. I've had credit card companies call me proactively when they thought something was wrong, before I caught any stray purchases. They refunded the money before I knew my card was stolen. So that was nice. But then I've also heard pure horror stories about stolen identities, and I am genuinely sorry you faced any of that. So what's going on here... I think this is due to one aspect of their model that is ultimately an improvement, even though it still completely breaks at moments. + + Your card number is not your account. + + Ie, if your CCN is compromised, it's disposable without starting your relationship with the company entirely from scratch. Your "identity" though is not disposable. Your identity controls your relationship with the company and is not disposable. That causes major problems when hijacked, as it did for you. And that's not fixable (or at least not easy to fix at all). So while we might not be able to solve the problem with identity, we can create firebreaks -- disposable parts of the infrastructure that attract some thefts because they allow quick wins. Ie, CCNs provide access to money. That funnels a lot of theft towards something that is easy to monitor and patch. The identity theft remains an issue, but hopefully hits fewer people. One thing that makes Google struggle is that they combine all of these interactions together. Nothing is revocable without resetting your entire relationship. Given that they started as an email service, I have no idea if it's even fixable from where they are.
LeoPanthera 8y ago
I know it's against the narrative, but I find PayPal's support people (the ones you phone up, at least) to be both empowered and helpful. They have gone out of their way, on more than one occasion, to help me out and get my account back to normal.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  PayPal and eBay might as well be direct and just tell the seller/receiver to outright fuck off. It's a scammers paradise between the two. They are both awful corporations that blatantly support obvious fraud. They don't give a shit. They should be criminally investigated.
computerex 8y ago
This is especially a problem for Google. They have somewhat earned a reputation of not providing customer support. One of the reasons why I stayed far away from Google Fi even though it looks very cool.
benologist 8y ago
It's more specifically a problem with Google as they actually have $106 billion in the bank and choose to write a few algorithms and pretend they've met their obligations to their customers, despite 20+ years of evidence it is insufficient. Some segments of their users like Adsense they have actually been stealing from for all this time via automated accounts bans and balance forfeiture safeguarded by their patently fake support.
- benologist 8y ago
  To provide a citation for their two decades of Adsense fraud, last year they settled a case they fought for four years after someone sued them for banning their account and stealing their revenue, alleging that they deliberately froze publisher accounts at the end of the month to maximize the amount of revenue to be stolen. After a ban the allegedly fraudulent portion of the revenue is refunded to the advertisers, non-fraudulent revenue within the same time frame is ... they settled for $11m on the grounds that it would be too expensive to show how they didn't design a system intended to steal from their publishers. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/
smsm42 8y ago
> Basically, if there was customer support that could fix the problem, then skilled scammers can get money and control out of them. Possibly. Then the question is - what is more important for the company, tolerating some amount of losses but keeping honest customers happy, or minimizing the losses at the cost of innocent people being screwed hard. As an innocent person, I'd prefer the system that leans towards my benefit. Even if it'd cost Google whopping 0.0001% of their revenues.

wyldfire 8y ago

> This is also a problem with Square, and Stripe, and Paypal ... it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. It's compounded by the fact that Google has the primary element of your 21st century identity: your email address.

jjeaff 8y ago
I recommend anyone who likes Gmail to use your own domain name@example.com and just forward all messages to your Gmail address. Only give out your own example.com email and set it as the reply to. Even the cheap budget registrars offer email forwarding for free and I have never had any trouble. This gives you the benefits of free Gmail without handing your entire life over to them. At least with a tld there is some due process and rules to protect you.
- neetdeth 8y ago
  Are there actually rules and due process? I was under the impression that it's just a convention that the registrar won't seize your domain unless they really, really dislike you. edit: I shouldn't be oblique in my comments. I'm of course referring to the whole Daily Stormer fiasco.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    It becomes a legal and business decision for the registrar. Most serve at the pleasure of a formal contract with their TLD control entity (e.g. ICANN). Ultimately, if you were to sue them, there's a root document of legal responsibilities and behavior to point to. In contrast to whatever emphemeral TOS bullshit Google feels like tossing out. And furthermore, unlike Google, they can't really just ignore you. Or, to put it another way, VISA, American Airlines, Coke, etc also have an interest in maintaining legal ownership of domains. They could care less about Google accounts.
    - cookiecaper 8y ago
      > Ultimately, if you were to sue them, there's a root document of legal responsibilities and behavior to point to. But actually if you were to sue them, wouldn't the case be dismissed for lack of standing? If you're not a party to the dispute you can't sue (or rather, you can't sue and actually have your case proceed). You'd probably need to convince ICANN that they need to sue, which is already a much trickier position.
- dpark 8y ago
  You’ll find that if you do this, you start getting emails directly to your gmail anyway. I never give out my gmail address, but I use gmail and they happily report my gmail address when they send email as my “real” account. (Both email addresses are included in emails I send.) And upstream they are happy to respond to that gmail account when people hit the reply button. So I have tons of people who would essentially seem my contact as a black hole if I abandoned my gmail address at this point, because Google seems to have deliberately crafted their clients to prefer the gmail address rather than the “real” address. Essentially treating the gmail address as if it’s a reply-to.
  - velosol 8y ago
    It's because of Google's use of 'From' and 'Sender' headers in gmail. If you setup an SMTP server to send your emails from for your @example.com address then Google won't mess around and the emails appear to actually come from the email address you want out there, not your @gmail.com.
    - jrobn 8y ago
      Or just pay Fastmail $30 a year for such an important 21st century utility such that e-mail is. I don't use gmail for anything else except throwaway accounts. Who wants to run an SMTP server.
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        Crazy how many people don’t view email as a critical part of life infrastructure worth paying for.
    - dpark 8y ago
      You can actually set up gmail to send through an external server? I had no idea they’d support that. Running an SMTP server is absolutely not something I’m willing to do, though. Aside from the general setup/maintenance hassle, all the big companies are aggressive at blocking spam and private SMTP servers are just tough to keep unblocked these days (or so I read).
- slyall 8y ago
  I wouldn't advise doing this. Forwarding all your email from one provider to another doesn't really work in today's Internet. The problem is that from gmail's point of view your registrar is now sending it a lot of spam. So it'll block the registrar or filter it more aggressively. Also if you get email from a 3rd party who uses domain-keys, spf, etc (eg just about everyone) then those emails will be failing all the checks when gmail receives them.
  - mrb 8y ago
    You misunderstand jjeaff. He suggests making the MX of yourdomain.tld point to Gmail's MTAs. This is what he means by "forwarding email". This is the best-practice way to do it and works perfectly well.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    This is inaccurate. I have namecheap forward all of my email from *@my-domain-name.com to my.name@gmail.com. Works no problem, has for several years. Prepared for the eventual switch to FastMail when they support multi-label messages. The only messages that end up in my spam folder are spam for knock off online pharmacies.
    - slyall 8y ago
      Hmm [goes off and does more research]. Okay, it appears this is so common that gmail has some guidelines that if people follow they are are usually okay: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365?hl=en It does look like namecheap filters spam aggressively so possibly that helps. In general be careful for the reasons I mention. But it looks like if you follow the guidelines with gmail then you'll be good. Sorry for the inaccurate information.
  - Evidlo 8y ago
    I've been doing this for years without any trouble.
- stolsvik 8y ago
  Agree, and I've been doing this for about a decade with very little problem. (Google do add both a Sender and From, with the Sender being your GMail-address. But that has not been a problem.)
- Const-me 8y ago
  DNS aren't too reliable. Stealing your own domain is easier than stealing google's own domain. If you use that e-mail for primary ID, getting even temporary control on your domain allows stealing all your accounts.
hcurtiss 8y ago
I'm increasingly convinced it's your cell phone number (i.e., all the IM services using SMS authentication). And when you're using Google Fi, they have that too.

stephenhuey 8y ago

At the very least, they should figure out how to empower somebody in the support structure. This happened to me with that silly Cash app from Square (the Twitter handle is very cutesy in its interactions with people). It seemed kinda cool in how it let us come up with our own handle for people to send us money for our wedding, but left such a terrible taste in my mouth when everyone told me it wasn't working and Square shut down my account with no explanation. Why do millions of people depend on that? I want options like that to exist, but if I really need to depend on people being able to give me money, I'm just going to tell them to send it via my Chase account since for all its problems, Chase is a mature business. Maybe I'd use an Emoji app from Square just to share some giggles with people, but a money app from Square??? Nope, their brand lost my trust at the worst possible moment.

fastball 8y ago

I mean, crypto is a payment system that won't kick you off for fraud.

lyall 8y ago
Even if it's deserved ;)
- akimball 8y ago
  Let's make human rights inalienable.
rrdharan 8y ago
The DAO hack remediation has determined that was a lie.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Effectively reversing the transaction isn't the same as not letting you buy anything ever again.
- fastball 8y ago
  That was a reversal of fraud, nobody was banned from the Ethereum network (because nobody can be banned from the network).

kevincennis 8y ago

I've actually had decent luck getting Stripe to un-blacklist subscribers that they incorrectly identified as fraudsters. But it takes a ton of back-and-forth with support reps who generally don't even know or believe you that blacklisting exists (sometimes just an email address, not a specific card, was blocked) – and in one case we didn't get a resolution until the customer got the CA Attorney General to write Stripe's general counsel.

saurik 8y ago

PayPal has sales representatives and technical support people and you can actually deal with them, so I am not sure the premise is right... ...but the core problem is this argument is in reverse anyway: if I get banned from Bank of America somehow I don't lose access to the concept of a card that lets me pay for my Verizon account, and in the worst case scenario I can send them a check. I have had serious issues with Verizon paying for my account before (they both claimed I was behind on payments but would not accept money without a PIN number, which I could only get by verifying my address using a post card that would take forever), but it wasn't a catch-22 scenario where I lose my phone number as there is somehow literally no way to pay for their service again.

fernly 8y ago
Are you sure about PayPal? Because I believe I have read quite a few pathetic stories -- similar in tone to the posted article about Google Fi -- about PayPal accounts being frozen with no recourse, for example[1]. And PayPal settled a class-action lawsuit on just this topic[2]. [1] http://www.paypalwarning.com/paypal-frozen-account/ http://www.paypalwarning.com/paypal-frozen-account/ [2] https://www.doctorofcredit.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-for-frozen-or-suspended-accounts-up-to-4-mil-settlement/ https://www.doctorofcredit.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-f...
- taneq 8y ago
  I thought PayPal's issues were on the receiver side rather than the payer side? Making payments seems OK, it's just if you use PayPal to receive payments, they can arbitrarily freeze your funds for 6 months whenever they feel like it.
  - drdaeman 8y ago
    Not always. I've recently moved to the US, and I wanted to get myself a Spitify account (hah). I had to wait for SSN for a few weeks, so no bank account yet - my only option was a prepaid Visa card. Bought one at QFC, used it with PayPal (a fresh account, as my old one is tied to another country) - and found it blocked the next day. PayPal had asked for an ID and address confirmation. I had my passport, but no utility bill (I was still using Airbnb, just looking for a long-term place to live). Asked support if there's anything I can do - and got nothing useful besides "we need a driver license or utility bill", even though I specifically asked what else could I provide if I don't have either of those (I had a mailing address from a forwarding company). Account was unusable, all I could do with it was logging in :) Then I've rented apartments and tried to send them a lease contract (with my full name and address) and it was rejected. Not an utility bill, right. Asked support about it, got no reply at all. Waited for a month, got electricity bill, and only then my account was unlocked. So, anything unusual - and even if you don't receive any money, you account could be blocked.

mjevans 8y ago

I believe these issues could be solved by actually taxing corporations and providing the service they clearly so desperately need. An /actual/ (inter)national ID and Identity verification service. One where disputes about identity and authorization can be escalated somewhere that makes sense, to the jurisdictions issuing these IDs. Ideally someone should be able to go to a police station (locally for local IDs, if on vacation/out of hometown in liaison between departments) and have their identity verified in a trusted way, and that verification reported as pass/fail to a third party whom is asking. This would also be the way of officially disputing fraudulent uses of identity; they would be reported via the same actions, but as a customer initiation (and statement of legal testimony taken in a case that would then be opened and reported to the involved parties). BTW, such a system SHOULD also include address resolution, for physical mail, voice, and electronic services (any sub-name actually). I would LOVE to only update my address in ONE place when I move, instead of trying to remember everyone I've ever given it to.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The problem with centralized identification is that it doesn't actually solve anything, it only outsources it to a less security-competent entity which would be an even bigger target for fraud and corruption. Creating one single place to change your address gives the attacker one single place to change your address. Compromise one system, bribe one police officer or DMV employee, get nation-wide root access to everything. And how does it even solve the problem? The problem isn't that Google doesn't know whether you're John Smith. It's that Google thinks John Smith is a scammer they won't do business with, and they aren't willing to spend their resources helping you to clear your name.
- lolc 8y ago
  Well, fraud would still happen. The problem from the fraudsters point of view are manifold though: They have to actually deal with the police in person. Sending copies of identity documents by mail is not as involved as personally going to a police station. The risks are very different. Similarily, you can have corruption at phone carriers and credit-card companies too. What matters is the audit-chain. If a police officer keeps id-ing fraudsters they won't be in the job for long. That public servants are more corrupt and less competent than the corporate employees one depends on is not a universal experience. Not for me anyway.

krferriter 8y ago

They need to require better identity-proofing methods. To open a bank account at many banks you need to physically show up at one of the bank locations and present physical original copies of identification documents. Allowing people to submit documents online is not good enough. After the identity has been proven, then from that point on you can offer online services, but the initial account creation needs to be done offline.

njarboe 8y ago

It is too bad that I can't pay $50 and/or go somewhere in person to try and solve serious problems. This would eliminate most scammers and give people a way to get something done when it is really serious. I would guess this is not done because the PR hit for charging to talk to a person would be bigger than just ignoring certain people's problems (or companies don't want to have divisions that make more money when the rest of the company screws up, but I doubt that).

gamblor956 8y ago

Have to chime in here: not a problem with Paypal. I've actually gone through this process, spoke with a real human being, and got things resolved in about 15 min...

wxz 8y ago
I completely disagree. I've had the same problem with PayPal and Venmo. At some point, if anything goes wrong, they just say their security system has flagged you and there is nothing they can do. They can't even tell you the issue. You just have to wait and hope it eventually clears you, hope it doesn't flag you the next time you do it (which it probably will somewhere in the algorithm, since you've been flagged before) or close/cancel your account.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  I guess this is one of those times where it helps to be a lawyer... As a money transmitter they have extra obligations and a quick call to the regulator can resolve issues relatively quickly (if you're a US citizen and live in the US).

gameswithgo 8y ago

>it's an unsolvable fraud/scammer problem. credit card companies and traditional banks and credit unions handle it fine. >Too many people, scams and fraud become big problems. if the solution to fraud is un-fixable account freezes, you have not actually solved anything. It is fraud itself.

JimboOmega 8y ago
It fixes one "fraud" path - where somebody seizes control of an account and holds it for ransom. Since the account itself is effectively destroyed by any flagging, it's then of no use as a hostage. An account that is flagged in any way is no longer of any use at all, no point to taking them over. Of course, a scammer could threaten to destroy your accounts, and can do so very easily and credibly... So that's not exactly a huge improvement.
MyNameIsFred 8y ago
They most certainly do not "handle it just fine". They are highly scammable, they know it, and it's "solved" my moving as much of the burden and repercussions onto the consumer as possible. I've had my identity stolen, and both my wife and I have been mistaken for somebody else. There ARE way to move past this condition (inline with Google Pay, apparently), but it's just done via trust. Or apathy. Or acceptable risk. Or some combination thereof. It never truly goes away.
- brownbat 8y ago
  Huh. I've had credit card companies call me proactively when they thought something was wrong, before I caught any stray purchases. They refunded the money before I knew my card was stolen. So that was nice. But then I've also heard pure horror stories about stolen identities, and I am genuinely sorry you faced any of that. So what's going on here... I think this is due to one aspect of their model that is ultimately an improvement, even though it still completely breaks at moments. + + Your card number is not your account. + + Ie, if your CCN is compromised, it's disposable without starting your relationship with the company entirely from scratch. Your "identity" though is not disposable. Your identity controls your relationship with the company and is not disposable. That causes major problems when hijacked, as it did for you. And that's not fixable (or at least not easy to fix at all). So while we might not be able to solve the problem with identity, we can create firebreaks -- disposable parts of the infrastructure that attract some thefts because they allow quick wins. Ie, CCNs provide access to money. That funnels a lot of theft towards something that is easy to monitor and patch. The identity theft remains an issue, but hopefully hits fewer people. One thing that makes Google struggle is that they combine all of these interactions together. Nothing is revocable without resetting your entire relationship. Given that they started as an email service, I have no idea if it's even fixable from where they are.

LeoPanthera 8y ago

I know it's against the narrative, but I find PayPal's support people (the ones you phone up, at least) to be both empowered and helpful. They have gone out of their way, on more than one occasion, to help me out and get my account back to normal.

paulie_a 8y ago
PayPal and eBay might as well be direct and just tell the seller/receiver to outright fuck off. It's a scammers paradise between the two. They are both awful corporations that blatantly support obvious fraud. They don't give a shit. They should be criminally investigated.

computerex 8y ago

This is especially a problem for Google. They have somewhat earned a reputation of not providing customer support. One of the reasons why I stayed far away from Google Fi even though it looks very cool.

benologist 8y ago

It's more specifically a problem with Google as they actually have $106 billion in the bank and choose to write a few algorithms and pretend they've met their obligations to their customers, despite 20+ years of evidence it is insufficient. Some segments of their users like Adsense they have actually been stealing from for all this time via automated accounts bans and balance forfeiture safeguarded by their patently fake support.

benologist 8y ago
To provide a citation for their two decades of Adsense fraud, last year they settled a case they fought for four years after someone sued them for banning their account and stealing their revenue, alleging that they deliberately froze publisher accounts at the end of the month to maximize the amount of revenue to be stolen. After a ban the allegedly fraudulent portion of the revenue is refunded to the advertisers, non-fraudulent revenue within the same time frame is ... they settled for $11m on the grounds that it would be too expensive to show how they didn't design a system intended to steal from their publishers. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/

smsm42 8y ago

> Basically, if there was customer support that could fix the problem, then skilled scammers can get money and control out of them. Possibly. Then the question is - what is more important for the company, tolerating some amount of losses but keeping honest customers happy, or minimizing the losses at the cost of innocent people being screwed hard. As an innocent person, I'd prefer the system that leans towards my benefit. Even if it'd cost Google whopping 0.0001% of their revenues.