Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#51

Post by segfaultbuserr » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:42 AM UTC

macintux wrote: post #43

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A challenge - try to register a Google account without providing personal information.

Heck, last time I tried to register a Twitter account I couldn’t do so without a phone number to receive a PIN, and a burner number wouldn’t do it. C’est la guerre.

I can answer my original question - Google has been actively blacklisting all forms of VoIP numbers to their best efforts, so it's almost impossible to register one account without putting in your personal information.

The last time I've checked it, there's only one workaround - you can purchase a real phone number connected to a computer from a cryptocurrency freelancer developer...

Many stories from the U.S media are condemning that the requirements of personal information online by authoritarian governments are threatening free speech, etc, meanwhile, in the U.S, big companies have done this voluntarily, and you need to be a hacker to register a Google account without personal information, it's just ridiculous.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#52

Post by segfaultbuserr » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #46

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signal As I understand it, Signal is always intended to be the "StartTLS" of telephone communication, so naturally it explicitly targets mobile phone users. I only use Signal to call or text someone I would otherwise call directly. But I agree with your general opinion. For most services I found it's ridiculous to be hardlinked to my phone number. Why on Earth you have to expose your phone number to some random peo…

> Signal is always intended to be the "StartTLS" of telephone communication, so naturally it explicitly targets mobile phone users. This doesn't make sense to me. If I have telephone service and the person I want to talk to also has telephone service, why do I want to use Signal to communicate from my telephone device to their telephone device? Aha! Because I want to communicate privately and the telephone service do…

You have a good point.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#53

Post by sdrothrock » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:46 AM UTC

Every time I see one of these lists, I think of this list: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

It's a general list of "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About . . ." lists. Names also come up fairly often on HN.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#54

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:46 AM UTC

On a tangent, how do people who use services like Google Voice deal with their VoIP numbers being rejected for verification by many sites?

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#55

Post by jpatokal » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:58 AM UTC

> In Argentina, to dial a mobile number domestically, the digits "15" need to be inserted after the area code but before the local number, and the "9" after the country code (54) needs to be removed. This transforms +54 9 2982 123456 into 02982 15 123456.

I used to work in telco, so I've seen some pretty wacky format formatting schemes, but this takes the cake. Who thought this was a good idea!?

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#56

Post by segfaultbuserr » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 5:04 AM UTC

miketery wrote: post #33

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #16

I have/had a Facebook account with a phone number. The account was left unused for a few years. Recently, I used my E-mail to reset its password, unfortunately, since the account was abandoned for a long time, the system flagged my activity as "suspicious" automatically, and asks me for confirmation using my phone number. But I no longer own that number. And from the customer Q&A forum, I realized I was not the only…

This story seems perfectly relevant - "computers don't argue" https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133

It's a perfect story! Hard to believe that the story was written in 1966, it resembles a common argument with your ISP. ;-) And we also have government employees who cannot pass the Turing test...

(to other readers: click "next page" to read the rest of the story)

The most absurd aspect of my Facebook verification problem is, despite my account has been frozen due to "suspicious activities", their system is still sending those automated mail notices to remind me returning to Facebook for those activities I've been missed on my timeline!

WTF.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#57

Post by nerdile » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 5:07 AM UTC

streblo wrote: post #4

I find this category of posts ("falsehoods programmers believe about X") to be patronizing and unhelpful. Most of these lists (this one included) don't give good explanations and don't have guidelines for how to avoid the problems that are highlighted. It's usually just a list of condescending gotchas.

I find these helpful when my team is designing a feature that intersects with this kind of "gotcha" area, and it sets off warnings in my mind, "I know there's something tricky about this business requirement but I can't put my finger on it...", these type of lists at least help me identify particular pitfalls, even if they don't provide solutions, so I can provide specific and scoped concerns to push back on or clarify the business requirements.

Some people just also really find these fun to think about.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#58

Post by 0xADEADBEE » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

newscracker wrote: post #37

> An individual has a phone number > Some people do not own phones, or do not wish to provide you with their telephone number when asked. Do not require a user to provide a phone number unless it is essential, and whenever possible try and provide a fallback to accommodate these users. Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram are spectacular design failures on this point because they assume that every person has a phone number…

I agree fully. I've no clue why phone numbers a prerequisite for most email account providers or anything else I have to sign up for. There is no quicker way to make me bail on a signup flow that to demand something that has nothing to do with what I'm using. I barely use my phone as it is, so I'm excited to see what the world will look like for me when I finally eschew it!

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#59

Post by jfaat » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #16

I have/had a Facebook account with a phone number. The account was left unused for a few years. Recently, I used my E-mail to reset its password, unfortunately, since the account was abandoned for a long time, the system flagged my activity as "suspicious" automatically, and asks me for confirmation using my phone number. But I no longer own that number. And from the customer Q&A forum, I realized I was not the only…

Since you know the number, have you considered reaching out to its current owner to coordinate passing off the code?

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#60

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

tomglynch wrote: post #6

Repeat after me: After reading this I realise the difficulty in using phone verification while scaling internationally.

Not just internationally.

The last time I was in northern New Jersey, Warwick Valley Telephone Company still supported five digit dialing across area codes!

People could dial 4nnnn to be connected to 973-764-nnnn (a New Jersey area code). They could also dial 6nnnn to be connected to 845-986-nnnn (a New York area code). There were about 15 different short codes across two area codes.

There are a lot of these little regional telephone quirks across America, and I think every one of them is awesome.