反诈，别给群众徒增不便（金台锐评）

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for precise anti-fraud measures to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the public while effectively combating telecom network fraud [1][2][3] Group 1: Current Issues in Anti-Fraud Measures - There has been an increase in over-execution and "one-size-fits-all" approaches in anti-fraud efforts, leading to public inconvenience such as excessive questioning during bank transactions and the need for proof of innocence for phone number reactivation [1] - The root cause of these issues lies in the "lazy governance" mindset, where responsibilities are shifted to the public, resulting in a distortion of policy execution [1] Group 2: Legal and Procedural Framework - Anti-fraud measures must adhere to legal frameworks, such as the Anti-Telecom Network Fraud Law, and should not impose additional requirements without legal authorization [2] - Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the public's right to be informed, appeal, and seek redress, with measures being necessary and minimally damaging to public rights and convenience [2] Group 3: Technological Solutions - Technology plays a crucial role in achieving precise anti-fraud measures, with AI and big data providing viable paths for risk assessment and intervention [2] - The shift from broad measures to targeted interventions is essential for balancing security and convenience, allowing for effective fraud prevention while minimizing disruption to the public [2] Group 4: Importance of Public Trust - The effectiveness of anti-fraud work relies on genuine public understanding and support, necessitating a focus on legal principles and precise measures to avoid "collateral damage" [3] - Balancing property security and the protection of legitimate rights is critical for maintaining public trust in anti-fraud initiatives [3]