4 ms·

I’m not sure money would be a great solution here. Malicious actors would be able to fork that over for important targets. IMO this is definitely something that

I’m not sure money would be a great solution here. Malicious actors would be able to fork that over for important targets. IMO this is definitely something that should go through the legal system rather than any honor system. If people lie to the authorities in any respectable country, that’s a criminal offense and could mean jail time.

tempnow987 5y ago
The money pays google for the work needed to validate. Just showing up in person is a huge control. A ton of scams rely on no one ever showing up IN PERSON. Let google troll through google photos etc, run face match, ask you questions about what you did when, send someone to visit your living situation or work etc. Perfect? No, but maybe a better compromise.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Yep. Some financial services transactions switched to allowing electronic/telephonic transactions during the pandemic. My broker basically switched back to certain transactions requiring in-person confirmation in some way or another. It's a nuisance but it also shuts down a lot of avenues of fraudulent activity.
tempestn 5y ago
Impersonating someone to take over their account is already illegal in most 'respectable' countries, but generally the people doing this either can't be traced (at least not cost-effectively) and/or don't live in one of those countries. I think the point of the money here isn't to dissuade bad actors trying to take over accounts, but to allow Google to hire the people necessary to do proper identity verification for account recovery, when there's no automated option available. It would provide a last resort for people who are legitimately in situations like that of the OP. The problem I see with that is that things aren't worth Google's time unless they have the potential to make (or save) billions of dollars. If this is a problem that only ever affects a handful of people, I don't see how they would ever have sufficient incentive to do something about it, even if they could charge for the service.

tempnow987 5y ago

The money pays google for the work needed to validate. Just showing up in person is a huge control. A ton of scams rely on no one ever showing up IN PERSON. Let google troll through google photos etc, run face match, ask you questions about what you did when, send someone to visit your living situation or work etc. Perfect? No, but maybe a better compromise.

ghaff 5y ago
Yep. Some financial services transactions switched to allowing electronic/telephonic transactions during the pandemic. My broker basically switched back to certain transactions requiring in-person confirmation in some way or another. It's a nuisance but it also shuts down a lot of avenues of fraudulent activity.

tempestn 5y ago

Impersonating someone to take over their account is already illegal in most 'respectable' countries, but generally the people doing this either can't be traced (at least not cost-effectively) and/or don't live in one of those countries. I think the point of the money here isn't to dissuade bad actors trying to take over accounts, but to allow Google to hire the people necessary to do proper identity verification for account recovery, when there's no automated option available. It would provide a last resort for people who are legitimately in situations like that of the OP. The problem I see with that is that things aren't worth Google's time unless they have the potential to make (or save) billions of dollars. If this is a problem that only ever affects a handful of people, I don't see how they would ever have sufficient incentive to do something about it, even if they could charge for the service.