Signed in other than at home

[BJohnsonPP]

I was helping my mother fix her computer through TeamViewer and, without thinking, I signed in to FusionCash on her computer. She is my referral (eme457 or eme4575). Will that be a problem? I didn't complete any offers or anything like that (I think I performed one search).

[sfister65]

I'm not that computer wise but I think it's okay. You signed under your login right? At work, when I'm on break or before I start the day I sign it and do my daily stuff. It hasn't been a problem...yet.

[falcon9]

The restrictions regard shared IP addresses, not log-on/e-mail addresses.

I'm not that computer wise but I think it's okay. You signed under your login right? At work, when I'm on break or before I start the day I sign it and do my daily stuff. It hasn't been a problem...yet.

[BJohnsonPP]

The restrictions regard shared IP addresses, not log-on/e-mail addresses.

Yeah, let me be clear. I was accessing my mothers computer remotely and signed into FusionCash through her browser. So though I was home, the actual login happened through here computer (IP address).

So, to the admin, I can post pictures of me and mother if you want. Whatever needs to be done to show that we're real people. I really don't want this to affect her account most of all.

[falcon9]

Yeah, let me be clear. I was accessing my mothers computer remotely and signed into FusionCash through her browser. So though I was home, the actual login happened through here computer (IP address).

So, to the admin, I can post pictures of me and mother if you want. Whatever needs to be done to show that we're real people. I really don't want this to affect her account most of all.

If you were using TeamViewer to remotely-access, that might not show as her IP, (oldbuddy uses Teamviewer and could probably address this with more accuracy), but as yours.

[BJohnsonPP]

If you were using TeamViewer to remotely-access, that might not show as her IP, (oldbuddy uses Teamviewer and could probably address this with more accuracy), but as yours.

Well, he uses TeamViewer when he's away to access his home computer so his home IP will show up. I used it at home and signed in through a remote computer. So that remote IP should show up.

I think it should be ok since I didn't do any offers. So far, I haven't received any kind of warnings or anything so I guess I'm ok.

[falcon9]

Well, he uses TeamViewer when he's away to access his home computer so his home IP will show up. I used it at home and signed in through a remote computer. So that remote IP should show up.

I think it should be ok since I didn't do any offers. So far, I haven't received any kind of warnings or anything so I guess I'm ok.

You're right; you would've shown as signed in through her IP in that case.  Has she tried completing any offers since then?

[BJohnsonPP]

I don't know. She does paid emails and paid to click everyday from what she tells me. She doesn't do sign up offers really.

I wish they would change the rule then I wouldn't be biting my nails right now. They should have it so that anyone who signs up under an IP owns that IP. If someone else tries to sign up or complete offers from that IP, they should just be blocked from doing so and not have both accounts in jeopardy of being banned. As long as the owner of the IP is active, it continues to be theirs.

"Active" could just mean signing in. Signing in should start a 6 month countdown to releasing ownership of the IP due to inactivity. Every sign in should reset the countdown to 6 months again. Anyone other than the owner signing in should just get a message saying their account isn't associated with that IP and they should be showed how long before the release of that IP.

Maybe I'm missing something, but right now I don't see why that isn't doable.

[falcon9]

Such a suggestion might be technically-viable however, it might not be practical in terms of publically-accessable connections.

I don't know. She does paid emails and paid to click everyday from what she tells me. She doesn't do sign up offers really.

I wish they would change the rule then I wouldn't be biting my nails right now. They should have it so that anyone who signs up under an IP owns that IP. If someone else tries to sign up or complete offers from that IP, they should just be blocked from doing so and not have both accounts in jeopardy of being banned. As long as the owner of the IP is active, it continues to be theirs.

"Active" could just mean signing in. Signing in should start a 6 month countdown to releasing ownership of the IP due to inactivity. Every sign in should reset the countdown to 6 months again. Anyone other than the owner signing in should just get a message saying their account isn't associated with that IP and they should be showed how long before the release of that IP.

Maybe I'm missing something, but right now I don't see why that isn't doable.

[BJohnsonPP]

Such a suggestion might be technically-viable however, it might not be practical in terms of publically-accessable connections.

The irony is that those who need to earn extra cash are more likely to not have computers and rely on public connections. I don't see how the current policy of banning them and anyone who signs up after them (they would have no way of knowing someone signed up before them btw) is practical compared to what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting allows for at least one person to sign up from public connections and it gives anyone signing up after a way of knowing if they're the first or not. FusionCash keeps more users this way.

Currently people take that risk because they have no other choice (there aren't libraries full of FusionCash users, so it's not that risky, but there's still a risk). With my suggestion, you get the same results of one account per household, which is what FC wants, without he risk. I'm going to need an admin to point out the flaw in what I'm saying 'cause I don't see it. 

[falcon9]

This is indeed something which Admin can clarify further.  My remarks related to tracking feasibility of users of public access IPs.  As far as I can tell, the main problem had been using the same IP address to propagate fraudulent user accounts.  Users of public internet access connections are nominally made aware that such connections are not secure/shared.  Tracking who has "dibs" on a public connection, (at any given period of time), as far as FC is concerned would be open to the multiple account potential fraud.

The irony is that those who need to earn extra cash are more likely to not have computers and rely on public connections. I don't see how the current policy of banning them and anyone who signs up after them (they would have no way of knowing someone signed up before them btw) is practical compared to what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting allows for at least one person to sign up from public connections and it gives anyone signing up after a way of knowing if they're the first or not. FusionCash keeps more users this way.

Currently people take that risk because they have no other choice (there aren't libraries full of FusionCash users, so it's not that risky, but there's still a risk). With my suggestion, you get the same results of one account per household, which is what FC wants, without he risk. I'm going to need an admin to point out the flaw in what I'm saying 'cause I don't see it. 

[BJohnsonPP]

This is indeed something which Admin can clarify further.  My remarks related to tracking feasibility of users of public access IPs.  As far as I can tell, the main problem had been using the same IP address to propagate fraudulent user accounts.  Users of public internet access connections are nominally made aware that such connections are not secure/shared.  Tracking who has "dibs" on a public connection, (at any given period of time), as far as FC is concerned would be open to the multiple account potential fraud.

You can currently make multiple accounts. You can make one at home, one at the job, one at your aunts house, etc. That's a matter for their verification process to handle. In order to ban accounts for multiple accounts per household abuse though, they must be logging IP's. If so, what I'm suggesting would prevent further sign-ups and even sign-ins from that IP.

Now, if you want to talk impracticality, waiting 6 months just to sign up a new account from that specific IP seems impractical to me but it could and would be tried. Make the initial sign up and any future sign ups provide their SS# along with phone verification. Increase the cashout limit and offers limit for cash outs on future sign ups. Make them wait 6 more months for any bonuses to be credited and before they can complete offers already completed by the initial sign up. I don't know. This isn't a fully fleshed out idea, but I'm convinced it can be done.