Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gttalbot 794 days ago
Why would Facebook not just block messages from Nigeria to rando North American towns at this point? Shouldn't the network analysis required to detect this sort of crime ring be a slam-dunk at this point? I don't get how this is still even possible.
4 comments

My parents' home phone used to receive several scam calls a week from India. There was no way to stop them short of giving up the landline, which is what I did.

I can't believe phone companies (in the UK) don't provide better protection, even a registry of whitelisted numbers, that could be set for the old/vulnerable.

Well, I am in and from India, and I receive several scam calls a month from India.

Indians, by number of victims, are the biggest victims of Indian scammers. Several people I know personally have been burned.

Our phone numbers are in several lists, and they get leaked.

I think one solution to this is strict data privacy laws. If there is a list with phone numbers/addresses, it should be subject to highest level of care and security. Or there should be laws banning collection of phone numbers unless absolutely needed.

No amount of spreading awareness seems to work. The local law enforcement of the exact two states in India where the domestic scammers are from are also "involved".

I live in Germany, famous for having among the strictest privacy laws.

I still get occasional scam calls a few times each month, often using mobile phone numbers or fraudulent VOIP numbers registered in Austria. They usually hang up as soon as you push back on their claim that they got the phone number "from the database, maybe you participated in a contest once" when prompted with the question of how they got your number. The callers are mostly women with Eastern European accents.

I suspect my number ended up in a list when it was leaked in a Facebook data leak because I had to connect it once for account recovery/verification.

They were with Virgin Media and the calls came from UK-looking non withheld numbers, so it wasn't particularly useful. BT and Sky's offerings look better, but you'd hope this kind of thing was part of the default offering.
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, the false positives (and the fallout from it) might outweigh the negatives: imagine a volunteer doctor who disappears in West Africa due to being kidnapped/robbed etc and someone local tries to contact the family back home, but all the messages end up getting blocked.
Something simple like a face match or even an email unlock if you connect to the account from an unusual location should work. A lot of websites do that already. So a volunteer doctor from the US opens their phone in Lagos, gets challenged, answers, Meta now knows that Nigerian IPs or whatever VPN they use are fine.
This seems like such a contrived example.

By all accounts the Dr would probably be in better shape if the kidnappers weren’t able to contact their family.

It's not the kidnappers trying to contact the family in this case. It's the clinic administrator who doesn't know why their doctor hasn't shown up for a week
Why shouldn't people in Nigeria be able to communicate with people from random North American towns?

Because there are some criminals in a geographical area you want to exclude the whole area? Why don't you demand a US-only internet instead?

Correct. Yet you can easily inform the end user, to get informed consent.

"NOTICE: The user appears to be in XXX, Nigeria. Beware of scams or impersonations by people hijacking your friend's accounts"

But Social media companies would never do this because it would destroy their so called "brand-trust"

This seems like a good idea. The other variation to cover would be "this person appears to be connecting from a known VPN... [insert further explanation/warning here]"
So people in North America who have friends of family in Nigeria would not be able to send them FB messages.