Often issues such as this are the result of people involved in the verification process, being bribed or taking cash for approvals. This is even more likely to happen if you outsource part of the process.
Often, posters on HN engage in pedophilia, tax evasion and satanic rituals. This is even more likely if you allow just anyone to create an account.
That's ridiculous, right? Because I provide no evidence for my statement whatsoever. And yet, I manage to paint every HN user with that broad brush.
It's an example of 'reductio ad absurdum'. If you have any evidence that your hypothesis is any more valid than mine, please do provide it. Otherwise, you're just smearing people without any reason except to validate your world view.
SIM card swaps have been reportedly repeatedly, as being a social engineering hack. Often the exchange has been done via gift cards or crypto. More than one such hack resulted in millions being stolen.
Your attack dog response is quite unwarranted. Why are you so upset at a generic comment, indicating that fraudulent identity verification can be done on both ends?
Do you imagine that university admissions employees are perfect, uncorruptible? Is this some weird, US political minefield?
You didn't say that financial aid administrators were being "socially engineered. Nor did you say that they had their SIMs swapped. Rather, you said[0]:
"Often issues such as this are the result of people involved in the verification process, being bribed or taking cash for approvals."
>Do you imagine that university admissions employees are perfect, uncorruptible? Is this some weird, US political minefield?
I do not. But I also don't make completely unsupported accusations/attacks against random strangers as you did. Not a "political minefield" at all. You were just talking out of your ass and I called you on it. Full stop.
My statement is entirely valid in this context.
Social engineering attacks are a well known method to hack, and masquerading as others is indeed a hack.
I don't know about evidence, but logically your example is bad. One is talking about specifically fraud issues, and their most likely cause. You're just generally talking about people.