I'm still hopeful that a good emergency communication protocol or set of protocols could make quick, but well-verified emergency communication possible. In my

I'm still hopeful that a good emergency communication protocol or set of protocols could make quick, but well-verified emergency communication possible. In my earlier comment I wanted to communicate that a speed tradeoff would be involved when protecting ourselves from scammers. Maybe I was too dramatic when talking about waiting hours or days to hear from a loved one, but we'd likely need to give up near-instant incoming communication from strangers (and loved ones trying to contact us through strangers) if we seriously want to protect ourselves from scammers. For many people, the tradeoff--even if in the order of minutes or an hour or two--will be unacceptable and they'll prefer to leave their incoming communication channels completely open and unsecured. However, others people may decide that a small tradeoff is worth it, when weighing their own vulnerability to destructive scams vs. a much lower probability of needing to help a loved one with the catastrophic examples you mentioned. This latter group should not be considered by society to be heartless. Though nobody dies right away when they lose their life savings to a scam, they may very well end up dying or ending up with a very miserable life as a result of that scam. They should not be blamed for reasonably protecting themselves (AND their loved ones, who'd also be affected indirectly by that scam.)