Remix.run Logo
miki123211 4 days ago

To put this as plainly as I possibly can:

1. It is objectively true that Apple and Google accounts are extremely important to many people.

2. It is also objectively true that most users will only need one of each, a few at most. Fraudsters have no such limitations, and may want to create thousands of them per day if the possibility arises.

3. Therefore, it's likely that a significant percentage of all accounts ever created are fraudulent, even if the actual number of fraudsters is much lower. This is the crucial observation many people miss in this debate.

4. Real users do not want constant iMessage spam and other problems resulting from fraudulent accounts remaining open. Therefore, normal users care deeply about fraudulent accounts being closed promptly (and so do money-laundering regulators, but that's another discussion).

5. Normal users also care about their accounts remaining open. Apple has to balance these two problems.

6. If we force Apple (by regulation, PR crisis or any other method) to be softer on closures, the only way to do that without exacerbating #4 is to make opening fraudulent accounts harder.

7. The only reliable way of preventing fraudsters from opening accounts is strict and invasive identity verification.

8. Therefore, if we're asking Apple / Google to keep more accounts open, we're also asking for more surveillance.

This may actually be the right tradeoff to make, but it is important to point out that there is a tradeoff here, and that no decision in this regard goes without consequences.

levanten 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

None of this prevents them from providing proper customer service that can resolve cases of false positives.

LexiMax 4 days ago | parent [-]

It is kind of astonishing to me that the entire chain of logic was put together without "The company could invest in better customer service to resolve disputed identity" as a third possibility.

It was certainly my first priority for an e-mail provider when I started to de-Google my life.

drewgross 3 days ago | parent [-]

My reading is that this was included in point #7, i.e. access to the customer service is conditional on identity verification.

Sweepi 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why cant they give a task which is reasonable for a real customer, e.g. show up with ID in an apple store and lets us reserve $100 on your credit card to unlock an account which is under investigation immediately? This is not more surveillance - Apple already knows the real name of their customer.

beeflet 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

charge 5$ for the ability to send your first iMessage. problem solved.

moogly 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Now Apple has a financial incentive to let more fraudsters in. Great job.

refactor_master 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So now every fraudster with $5 appears legitimate?

Remember blue check marks? The EU is not happy about those.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

Sweepi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

"On X, anyone can pay to obtain the ‘verified' status without the company meaningfully verifying who is behind the account, making it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and content they engage with."

As stated in you source the EU is (among other things) not happy about Twitter calling users 'verified' while the meaning of 'verified' switched from "we did sth. to make sure the account owner is indeed the thing/person they say they are" to "the account owner is paying a monthly fee".

bcye 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They would appear no less legitimate then now?

GaryBluto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When has the EU been happy about anything, ever?

gpvos 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or we could, you know, restructure our economy so that we don't have huge semi-monopolies anymore. I know, not going to happen, but one can dream.

NetMageSCW 2 days ago | parent [-]

And then we would have health insurance and health care level problems with lots of things.