The problem with many of these examples is that 99% of the time, it is a sign of fraud, and 1% of the time it’s a false positive.
> If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud.
I’ve been using this heuristic (along with VPN and IP geo lookup) when screening job candidates after a massive influx of developers outside the US applying for US-only remote roles. I discovered that VOIP phone numbers on a resume is extremely highly correlated with the applicant lying about where they live.
If it weren’t for this screening step, I literally wouldn’t be able to hire anyone because the volume of fraud is so incredibly high that it drowns out legitimate candidates.
I wish there were a way to detect fraud while never having a false positive.
But the reality is that a lot of the heuristics you listed are indeed strongly correlated with fraud. It sucks, but it’s also not realistic to optimize for the 1% of false positives at the expense of the 99%.
> If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud.
I’ve been using this heuristic (along with VPN and IP geo lookup) when screening job candidates after a massive influx of developers outside the US applying for US-only remote roles. I discovered that VOIP phone numbers on a resume is extremely highly correlated with the applicant lying about where they live.
If it weren’t for this screening step, I literally wouldn’t be able to hire anyone because the volume of fraud is so incredibly high that it drowns out legitimate candidates.
I wish there were a way to detect fraud while never having a false positive.
But the reality is that a lot of the heuristics you listed are indeed strongly correlated with fraud. It sucks, but it’s also not realistic to optimize for the 1% of false positives at the expense of the 99%.