Remix.run Logo
hamdingers 5 hours ago

I'm curious what you think the difference is between "a paying iCloud user" and "an anonymous rando off the internet." How many Apple gift cards do you reckon get sent to fraudsters every day? Decades worth of iCloud+ surely.

I'm running a business where I need to know who you are, because my platform can be used defraud other people. If you're trying to hide who you are from our very first interaction, that's a massive red flag.

If you can trivially create hundreds of these emails, and fill in the rest of the required info with bought/stolen/generated PII, now I have a vector for mass fraud. Requiring you to use a recognized non-anonymized provider doesn't stop you, but it sure does slow you down. (It's not this simple of course, but all security works in layers)

If these terms are not acceptable to you, then great! Don't use the website, there's no need to be salty because that's what you said you wanted. Isn't it?

I don't mind either, because the number of legitimate users who are bothered by this restriction is infinitesimal compared to the number of fraudsters who would take advantage if it wasn't in place. It can be difficult to comprehend the scale of platform fraud unless you've worked in this area, many days fraudulent signups outnumber legitimate ones.

FireBeyond 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If you're trying to hide who you are from our very first interaction, that's a massive red flag.

You conflate email with identity, just like the media companies conflated IP addresses.

It's not hiding who you are, it's hiding my real email address behind a mask that you can't choose to sell off to marketers, or spam yourself, or otherwise profit off, regardless of the nature of our relationship - I've got plenty of spam emails from companies that I closed accounts with, thus severing our relationship.

> If you can trivially create hundreds of these emails, and fill in the rest of the required info with bought/stolen/generated PII, now I have a vector for mass fraud. Requiring you to use a recognized non-anonymized provider doesn't stop you, but it sure does slow you down. (It's not this simple of course, but all security works in layers)

It's not that simple, but I guarantee it doesn't remotely slow anyone down, not at the scales we're talking. Maybe if you're talking one entity and tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts, but it's laughably naive to believe that such a person who is set up to conduct "mass fraud" can't create 100 Gmail/Outlook/iCloud email addresses a day, if not an hour, with near zero effort (it's not like they're committing "mass fraud" by hand, after all).

hamdingers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I guarantee it doesn't remotely slow anyone down

I have watched the rate go down and stay down on real live dashboards.

> Maybe if you're talking one entity and tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts

We are.

I'm not so rude as to call you "laughably naive" but I am speaking from experience and you appear to be considering a hypothetical.

AlexandrB 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you're trying to hide who you are from our very first interaction, that's a massive red flag.

If you're trying to collect personal information that's none of your business from the very first interaction, that's a massive red flag. Like how many data leaks and customer data exposures is it going to take to understand that the data I'm giving you is a liability for me? How much spam am I expected to put up with because you give my data to a "data broker" for one reason or another? Why should I trust anything you say regarding how you will handle my data after all the embarrassing fuck-ups over the years? What is your liability if you mishandle my data, is it approximately $0? Do you have an arbitration clause in your TOS so I can't even sue you when you screw up?

There's zero responsibility from the tech industry for their continued failures in this regard and then you have the temerity to lecture me about my "red flag"? Seriously?

iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It sounds like you are trying to shoehorn email into some kind of “real person verification” role, when you ought to be doing actual KYC through some provider like ID.me. (If honest to god no-shit fraud is on the table.)

hamdingers 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If I can filter/throttle fraudsters at the create account step for free, I save on the fees my KYC/IDV providers charge each time they attempt to defeat it.

iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent [-]

At the cost of blocking legitimate users who don’t want to be spammed, don’t want to be correlated after a data breach, etc.

I have been willing to do KYC for services (usually financial) without giving out my main email. Services that put up too many barriers to this don’t get my business. I concede that there aren’t that many users like me, compared to the general public, but I’m a legitimate user.

tom_ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There must be at least two of us!

hamdingers 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Luckily I'm not obligated to serve legitimate users who's behavior is similar to that of fraudsters. That would make my job very difficult!

As I said above, and you concede, users like this are too small a minority to be worth worrying about.

anonymous908213 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nowhere other than on HN have I seen so many people who are actively proud of their anti-consumer (and frankly anti-human) behaviour. It's a rather revealing look into the veil behind big tech. A lot of people have this misconception that it's evil $bigcorp forcing employees to do what earns a paycheck, but no, there's no shortage of normal people like yourself bragging about anything they can do to identify and track consumers more easily while comparing them to fraudsters for not wanting to be tracked. I suppose that's the narrative you have to concoct to help yourself sleep at night.

I'm curious, though:

> choosing to participate anonymously

Why are your name, e-mail address, and phone number not on your profile? Are you using HN with the intent to commit fraud?

hollerith 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

anonymous908213 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They aren't giving useful information, they are posting an opinion insinuating that people who use """""fake""""" (ie. non-personally-identifying) e-mail addresses are fraudsters.

> If you insist on giving me a fake email, your business is probably a liability I don't want anyway.

They did not provide any meaningful insight into the field, they are simply insisting that e-mail addresses should be a tool for personal identification because it saves them money over doing real KYC. In other words, they believe KYC should be slanted further in favor of corporations and against customers, such that KYC is publicly available for free, because they value not doing the work of verification over humans having any privacy whatsoever.

As they are entitled to post their opinion on humans having no privacy rights, I am entitled to post mine and point out the hypocrisy of them choosing to participate in this forum privately while advocating for and boasting about denying service to other people who attempt to protect their privacy.