Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phone numbers are not proper verification

b1nary.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#121

Post by herbst »

jedimastert wrote: post #111
al2o3cr wrote: post #105

"A phone number is nothing you can just keep. Also i OWN my emails domains." I don't get the distinction the author is trying to make: if you stop paying the renewal fees for them you'll find you "own" those domains exactly as much as you "own" a phone number.

Having a phone number and a domain actually have way more similarities than I think this guy wants to say. You don't own your domain, your registrar does and you are leasing it. Sure, generally you go year to year instead of month to month, but in the end you don't own your domain either. And it's way easier for someone to target you.

I dont know about other countries, carriers or contracts. But my contract clearly stated that my phone provider can cancel the account anytime without prior notice if they think that is necessary. Its a typical piece of text you find in many service based business contracts. I dont claim to know what exactly this means, but it surely is a difference to having to sue me for a valid reason to be allowed to take over my domain. A process that not only takes a while but also has several prior warnings.

Sure it is not _mine_ ether. But it is more mine than a phone number ever will be.

Edit:// I tried to look it up, except trademark stuff (and even then its not easy) i dont see any reason a domain could be taken away from the renter while beeing paid for.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#122

Post by Zak »

akjainaj wrote: post #37

Saying phone numbers are no proper verification because some people refuse to have mobiles is like saying fingerprint verification is no proper verification because some people don't have fingers... Well, no. It's worse. You've chosen to be a "nomad", "outcast", whatever it is, well, then live by your word.

A more mainstream problem would be moving, or even traveling for a moderate amount of time to another country. Within the EU, that's fairly common, as many countries are rather small and the borders between them are rather open. For comparison with the US, the barriers to this are a little higher than moving to another state, but not a lot higher.

Having important services tied to a phone number, which remains relatively tied to a country is problematic in the modern world even for people who aren't especially "outcast".

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#123

Post by ryandrake »

akjainaj wrote: post #37

Saying phone numbers are no proper verification because some people refuse to have mobiles is like saying fingerprint verification is no proper verification because some people don't have fingers... Well, no. It's worse. You've chosen to be a "nomad", "outcast", whatever it is, well, then live by your word.

Strange how "not having a mobile phone" is seen by some as being a "nomad" or "outcast". Come on. They've become pretty common, but let's not get carried away here.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#124

Post by sethammons »

herbst wrote: post #38
icebraining wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure i could call my bank one a month to change my telephone number, which i loose control of shortly after that (only valid for a few months, prepaid). This is hardly a solution. I don't get it, why are your prepaid cars only valid for a few months? Do people just lose their number regularly? Around here you can get a prepaid SIM, and you only need to make a single call per six months to keep it active. Even an init…

No thats what i ment. I need to use it within N period to keep it. If i just receive SMS every other month it will die after a while. Also as mentioned i cant get it again, prepaid is kind of contract less. If i loose the sim i am not entitled to get the same number again.

Could just set a reminder to call someone or an automated service once every period...

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#125

Post by herbst »

tyingq wrote: post #119
herbst wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to my telephone contract it can be taken at any time and i am not entitled to my telephone number. This is something you dont find with domains.

They can take your domain away, for example, if you fail to respond to an inquiry regarding invalid contact info. Anyone can initiate one of those inquiries. And, of course, there's the various domain name dispute policies at ICANN.

I just checked for details. So far as i can tell its a long, costly and usually failing process to get a domain taken. VS. Just a random thought by a single entity to get your phone number taken.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#126

Post by manigandham »

lostboys67 wrote: post #90
tomhoward wrote: post #46

I know life can be frustrating when you don't fit the conventional profile. It's been the same for me. But organisations like banks need to have systems that adequately balance security, usability and ubiquity, and it turns out that phone number authentication is optimal across those criteria. Of course it's not perfect, but empirically it works better than the alternatives (otherwise they'd already have changed it),…

But the OP does have a point that you don't own the phone number your countries PTT or Regulator does. And for google if you have multiple people using the same google accounts which you would do for many google services 2FA can really mess you up eg if I WFH I cant login to some of our GA GTM and GSC accounts.

> multiple people using the same google accounts

Why would you do this? Whether personal or work related, Google has always said to keep accounts tied to an individual.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#127

Post by herbst »

sethammons wrote: post #124
herbst wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thats what i ment. I need to use it within N period to keep it. If i just receive SMS every other month it will die after a while. Also as mentioned i cant get it again, prepaid is kind of contract less. If i loose the sim i am not entitled to get the same number again.

Could just set a reminder to call someone or an automated service once every period...

Thats a very cool idea actually. Would depend on not changing my phone or resetting it and forget about it so probably faulty, but i keep that in mind.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#128

Post by akjainaj »

ryandrake wrote: post #123
akjainaj wrote: post #37

Saying phone numbers are no proper verification because some people refuse to have mobiles is like saying fingerprint verification is no proper verification because some people don't have fingers... Well, no. It's worse. You've chosen to be a "nomad", "outcast", whatever it is, well, then live by your word.

Strange how "not having a mobile phone" is seen by some as being a "nomad" or "outcast". Come on. They've become pretty common, but let's not get carried away here.

Do you know a single person who doesn't have a phone number? And I don't mean to say a smartphone. Just a phone number.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#129

Post by Nadya »

manigandham wrote: post #126
lostboys67 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the OP does have a point that you don't own the phone number your countries PTT or Regulator does. And for google if you have multiple people using the same google accounts which you would do for many google services 2FA can really mess you up eg if I WFH I cant login to some of our GA GTM and GSC accounts.

> multiple people using the same google accounts Why would you do this? Whether personal or work related, Google has always said to keep accounts tied to an individual.

Team managing a GA account for a client. Which is not uncommon for internet marketing companies.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#130

Post by akjainaj »

Zak wrote: post #122
akjainaj wrote: post #37

Saying phone numbers are no proper verification because some people refuse to have mobiles is like saying fingerprint verification is no proper verification because some people don't have fingers... Well, no. It's worse. You've chosen to be a "nomad", "outcast", whatever it is, well, then live by your word.

A more mainstream problem would be moving, or even traveling for a moderate amount of time to another country. Within the EU, that's fairly common, as many countries are rather small and the borders between them are rather open. For comparison with the US, the barriers to this are a little higher than moving to another state, but not a lot higher. Having important services tied to a phone number, which remains relati…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/11707837...
Post reply on HN