>Maybe the solution should be to have some basic free state-paid email provider for those people. They are not forced to use Gmail specifically (albeit the number of non-sucking and free email providers is probably close to zero). You don't need to use Gmail. There are a lot of good free mail providers.
And what happens if I've already been using that gmail address and then become homeless? I guess too bad! Should have thought of my future homelessness when I was signing up for an email service a decade ago!
Then you change your password to a strong one and turn off 2FA
> the main issue at hand is google's neglectful lack of customer support. Customer support is the main entrypoint into 99% of sim swapping attacks and would be similarly for any targeted account takeovers. What sort of information do you possibly think would be enough to prove someone actually owns a Google account over the phone?
that is a phenomenal question that deserves to be answered by the highly paid engineers at Google they're smart, I'm sure they can find a way, even if it contains such horrible, detestable ideas like "more support staff" and "more training for support staff"
Companies with highly trained support staff regularly fall for these attacks.
The answer has been figured out by the highly trained engineers. It's "don't provide account recovery options that bypass 2fa". Yeah that sucks for a segment if people, but it sucks less than regularly getting your account stolen due to a social engineering attack. There really, truly, doesn't exist a panacea. You don't have and can't create an oracle that knows when an account recovery attempt is legitimate or not.
Look, I'd love to fix homelessness in America! Really, I would! But Google's policies are causing people to get locked out of their accounts now , today. Google could put a toggle in Google Account settings titled something like "Allow anyone who knows my password to log in to my Google account (less secure)." It could sit above a description of the risks involved. It would need to be disabled by default, and it woul…
This is a result of taking a product made by someone else for a certain purpose and then using it for one it isn't intended. Its not Google's fault gmail is a bad fit here. They didn't design it with this use case in mind. The solution is to use one that is. Why are case workers directing the homeless to setup gmail accounts? Because they haven't been provided with a better solution by the system they work within. So…
If Google is going to position itself as the face of the internet, then it has to live up to that responsibility; it can’t go, hm yes, use our browser and our email service and our phones, but only if you fit into this category of prescribed users.
You're absolutely right. Now let's talk about how much effort and what level of resources it's reasonable to expect a commercial entity to invest in extending protections to vulnerable people in need who happen to not be customers. Perhaps we're asking the wrong entity to address this problem? This seems more like a public service infrastructure problem.
Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they barely have to lift a finger. They simply have to provide an option to opt out of 2FA. Add a bunch of warnings if you must. Even if Google was a small startup it would be trivial for them to do this.
Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they barely have to lift a finger. They simply have to provide an option to opt out of 2FA. Add a bunch of warnings if you must. Even if Google was a small startup it would be trivial for them to do this.
To be clear, your answer to vulnerable people needing protections is to lower the minimum level of security for everyone using Gmail. Do I understand correctly?
Every single American should be able to get a free, permanent email account through our Postal Service! We shouldn't have to rely on Gmail for what may be the only way to get information/apply for on basic government services!
This. The provider/USPS will then realise how challenging it is to do verify identity.
There was a bill to improve digital identity in the us Congress but I don't think it went anywhere. I do think govt issued digital id, while in some ways problematic would be a step in the right direction
We're pretty good at getting the temporarily homeless into housing. Obviously any improvements are good, but fundamentally the issue is with the chronically homeless who often have other factors going on.
> We're pretty good at getting the temporarily homeless into housing. I’ll take tautological statements for $200 please Alex
This is the industry term for people between housing (they can't make rent, they got kicked out, etc). It differentiates from the chronically homeless who can not be rehoused simply by giving them a place to live.
At least a data point here - my city of Austin is buying a hotel to convert into housing for the homeless. This has gone badly. The property sees intense vandalism and destruction, the neighbors are afraid for their safety, and the whole thing is an amazingly expensive boondoggle. [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/us/austin-hotel-purchased-homeless-s... [1]: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/05/16/austin-homel...
That's a bad example. The unoccupied hotel was vandalized before the homeless were moved in. Yes, it a boondoggle, but nothing to do with homeless.
I don't think it was the local homeowners stealing live copper from the walls.