Probably because the more barriers you put in the way of scams, social engineering, etc. the harder you make it for people to legitimately get back into their accounts and the more likely it is that you'll instead read stories about how someone "forgot their credentials and lost access to everything in their account and Google won't do anything about it."

No opinion on SMS specifically but there are tradeoffs.

I have no idea what the pros and cons are and certainly can’t speak for why. However, I think the existence of the Advanced Protection Program is definitely acknowledgment that the SMS backup is not secure enough for everyone.

The thing is, not long ago I had no issue recovering my account if it got compromised. I think attackers today have gotten better at finding ways to beat the system. One thing I’ve seen, albeit I don’t know if it works on Google accounts, is enabling high security after stealing an account, effectively making recovery very hard.

Though, I can’t really speculate on if that’s what’s going on here.

Because, depending on your risk profile, it can be very helpful:

> We found that an SMS code sent to a recovery phone number helped block 100% of automated bots, 96% of bulk phishing attacks, and 76% of targeted attacks.

* https://security.googleblog.com/2019/05/new-research-how-eff...

Not everyone has to worry about being targeted by nation states.

When you first enable 2FA with Google you have to do SMS (at least that was the requirement last time I did it). However, once you've defined an alternative 2FA method (Google auth, u2f key, etc) then you can remove the SMS method completely.

Believe it or not banks are really bad at security. They are so bad at it that they don't even realize how bad at it they are. But the banks all copy from each other so "what the other guy is doing" is more or less their justification for what they do. Most of them have little to no idea why they do what they do for IT security, they just do what the Computer Security for Dummies book says to do (walk through the IT security department at any big bank and I bet you there is a dog eared copy of that tome on every desk)

Synchrony is one of the worst offenders, they won't even let you change your password without doing SMS verification, and their source of phone numbers is a Transunion skip trace database (which you can't change or remove any information from), so getting past Synchrony can be as easy as filling out a contest form at a mall, waiting for the phone number to appear with Transunion, then choosing that phone number to do SMS verification. It might take a couple months but payoff can be huge.

My hero at the moment is Capital One, they allow you to do e-mail authentication instead of SMS, and their iOS app also doubles as an additional factor (one requiring you to enter your password or use touch ID to use).

I was also extremely happy to find that the brokerage Robinhood offers Google Auth as a second factor. E*Trade also offers 2FA but a proprietary token w/ lcd display (which they happily charge you for).

My trick has been to give banks a false phone number that rings busy forever. That does effectively keep me from using banks that require SMS authentication, but there are more then enough that either offer other methods or drop their SMS requirement if you list your mobile number as your home number (indicating that its a wired phone and can't receive SMS). That doesn't keep my Synchrony accounts secure but there are enough protections around credit cards that my liability would be $50 at worst, with Synchrony having to eat the remainder of the loss.

It depends on your threat level. If you're just trying to avoid phishing, it's great, something like 99.9% effective. However, if you're worried you'll be targeted, where someone will go through the effort to do this to you specifically, then it's not a good choice.

I've just checked and Google now allows the removal of SMS based 2FA if you have an alternative 2FA method configured.