The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#2That's like saying IP addresses are stupid technology of the past century.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#3That's like saying IP addresses are stupid technology of the past century.
If by that you mean IPv4, then yes.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#4I don't understand the problem, isn't this "solved" by contact lists? I for one am glad I can just call "Ted" instead of having to remember some nonsense like dreamyted887.com
I agree phone numbers are stupid to use as authentication, but I don't see how this scheme can save anyone from having to purchase a new sim when they move between autonomous cell regions.
Also, why is the Patrick McGoohan quote attributed to Iron Maiden?
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#5I agree with the author on a few points:
1. the telephone number system is terrible (but only in hindsight) 2. a telephone number should not be used for security
But his premise of a DNS for phone numbers is ridiculous. Does he think the PSTN was invented when smartphones came out? What about the wide plethora of legacy phones that would cause countless issues?
If someone did manage to complete he herculean (if not impossible) task of making it happen, it would be a massive waste; the PSTN will become obsolete in the not so distant future as internet based solutions take over.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#6That's like saying IP addresses are stupid technology of the past century.
They are. Nodes on the internet should be identified by public key hashes, not IPs. Whoever can respond to a packet with a message, whose signature verifies against the public key that it's destined to, is by definition the recipient.
Servers would have relatively static keys, while client keys could be as ephemeral as wanted. So rather than specify an IP address (location) as destination, you specify the recipient, by encrypting a request with eg. Google's SSL public key, signing it with your public key, and delivering it to something that will route this packet to Google (at whatever IP address that may be), so they can decrypt it, and produce a packet encrypted with your public key.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#7That's like saying IP addresses are stupid technology of the past century.
They are. Nodes on the internet should be identified by public key hashes, not IPs. Whoever can respond to a packet with a message, whose signature verifies against the public key that it's destined to, is by definition the recipient. Servers would have relatively static keys, while client keys could be as ephemeral as wanted. So rather than specify an IP address (location) as destination, you specify the recipient,…
IP addresses have nothing to do with identification. As the name implies, they're for addressing.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#8I agree that phone numbers feel archaic & stupid. I also think they are stupid identifiers for services other than telephone networks (say .. IM).
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#9I prefer them.
Re: The User Experience of Mobile Phone Numbers
#10I don't understand the problem, isn't this "solved" by contact lists? I for one am glad I can just call "Ted" instead of having to remember some nonsense like dreamyted887.com I agree phone numbers are stupid to use as authentication, but I don't see how this scheme can save anyone from having to purchase a new sim when they move between autonomous cell regions. Also, why is the Patrick McGoohan quote attributed to I…
The author doesn't realize that Iron Maiden themselves are quoting "The Prisoner" in their song "The Prisoner."