if the cellular carriers were forced to verify that caller-ID (or SMS equivalent) was accurate SMS scams would disappear (or at least be weaker). Google shouldn’t have to do the job of the carriers, and if they wanted to implement this anyway they should let the user choose what service they want to perform the task similar to how they let the user choose which “Android system WebView” should be used.
Comment on Google’s ‘Secret’ Update Scans All Your Photos
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days agoTo quote the most salient post
The app doesn’t provide client-side scanning used to report things to Google or anyone else. It provides on-device machine learning models usable by applications to classify content as being spam, scams, malware, etc. This allows apps to check content locally without sharing it with a service and mark it with warnings for users.
Which is a sorely needed feature to tackle problems like SMS scams
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Aermis@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Carriers don’t care. They are selling you data. They don’t care how it’s used. Google is selling you a phone. Apple held down the market for a long time for being the phone that has some of the best security. As an android user that makes me want to switch phones. Not carriers.
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
No, that wouldn’t make much difference. I don’t think I’ve seen a real world attack via SMS that even bothered to “forge” the from-field. People are used to getting texts from unknown numbers.
And how would you possibly implement this supposed “caller-id” for a field that doesn’t even have to be set to a number?
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
caller id is the thing that tells you the number. it isn’t cheap to forge, but it’s the only way a scan could reasonably effect anyone with more than half a brain. there is never a reason to send information to an unknown SMS number, or click on a link from a text message from an unknown number.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You don’t need advanced scanning technology running on every device with access to every single bit of data you ever seen to detect scam. You need telco operator to stop forwarding forged messages headers and… that’s it. Cheap, efficient, zero risk related to invasion of privacy through a piece of software you did not need but was put there “for your own good”.
zlatko@programming.dev 3 days ago
I will perhaps be nitpicking, but… not exactly, not always. People get their shit hacked all the time due to poor practices. And then those hacked things can send emails and texts and other spam all they want, and it’ll not be forged headers, so you still need spam filtering.
throwback3090@lemmy.nz 3 days ago
Why do you need machine learning for detecting scams?
Is someone in 2025 trying to help you out of the goodness of their heart? No. Move on.
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Blaming the victim solves nothing.
Scamming is a rapidly growing industry that is becoming more professional and specialized all the time. Anyone can be scammed.
Aermis@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If you want to talk money then it is in businesses best interest that money from their users is being used on their products, not being scammed through the use of their products.
Secondly machine learning or algorithms can detect patterns in ways a human can’t. In some circles I’ve read that the programmers themselves can’t decipher in the code how the end result is spat out, just that the inputs will guide it. Besides the fact that scammers can circumvent any carefully laid down antispam, antiscam, anti-virus through traditional software, a learning algorithm will be magnitudes harder to bypass. Or easier. Depends on the algorithm
throwback3090@lemmy.nz 3 days ago
I don’t know the point of the first paragraph…scams are bad? Yes? Does anyone not agree? (I guess scammers)
For the second we are talking in the wild abstract, so I feel comfortable pointing out that every automated system humanity has come up with so far has pulled in our own biases and since ai models are trained by us, this should be no different. Second, if the models are fallible, you cannot talk about success without talking false positives. I don’t care if it blocks every scammer out there if it also blocks a message from my doctor. Until we have data on consensus between these new algorithms and desired outcomes, it’s pointless to claim they are better at X.