T-Mobile: Breach Exposed SSN/DOB of 40M+ People

Post by vlozko » Wed, Aug 18, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #240

vlozko wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should T-Mobile care who it is they are giving phone service to? As long as the bills are paid on time, it shouldn't matter. Here's my order ID and my password Therein lies the problem. Phones these days are sold on loans and this is a postpaid service meaning each billing cycle you owe for the prior billing cycle. People defaulting on phone bills is more common than you think. I recall some time about ~25 year…

So just have a prepaid option with the same plethora of plans as postpaid, and not require ID? Cut service instantaneously if not prepaid on time before 1st of the month. Or even add on a $100 deposit which buys you a 1 month grace period any time. I don't mind paying phone bills upfront at all.

Post by u801e » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #21

coldcode wrote: post #6

As usual they don't say how this was accomplished. They call it "sophisticated" but it probably was just stupid or lazy, which is very common in most corporate hacks. Big companies don't really care much about security since it costs money and rarely causes much trouble to your stock price and exec compensation. The people who suffer are those whose data is compromised and have no idea it happened.

I can agree. At one of my previous employers, IT management was adamant that no password vaults of any kinds could be used. It was a bigger company with tons of various systems to get into all with different sets of requirements. So what was the result? Average user ended up storing passwords info in excel and text files. Yay. I think only recently there was some movement to approve a vendor there.

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #255

lostcolony wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "require issued IDs to vote". Countering with "there are many forms of ID that are accepted" doesn't really feel like you're arguing against what I said.

What I am trying to emphasize here is that there's a difference between "a myriad of disjoined systems which can be used to identify somebody" and "a single system that includes data about everybody". The difference is a bit like being able to hire a PI to follow somebody and having everybody's whereabouts in a single centralized database 24/7. Not the same thing, wouldn't you agree?

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #256

snowwrestler wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not mandatory. You don’t need to get a passport unless you want to travel internationally. The question is whether the U.S. federal government can require all U.S. residents to get, carry, and provide a national form of identification. To my knowledge it cannot, but I’m not handy with a case citation to prove it. Watching the rest of this thread to see what people turn up. Note that Social Security numbers are ex…

> But not mandatory. Even state IDs aren’t generally mandatory in theory, they are mandatory for specific purposes. Like most proposed national IDs. Like Passports. Like Real ID. Like EDL. Like Military ID. Like… > The question is whether the U.S. federal government can require all U.S. residents to get, carry, and provide a national form of identification. No, its not. Literally no one is advocating that. Its actual…

Post by dhosek » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #151

dhosek wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of people who use religion to decry this sort of thing. From the first page of results on a google search for "federal id mark of the beast": https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-national-biometric-id... https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/don-t-give-your... http://archive.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/03/... I'm a Christian and I find most of those arguing that it's the mark o…

> I'm a Christian and I find most of those arguing that it's the mark of the beast (or the road there) to be disingenuous at it's root Yes, using a 1st century AD apocalyptic book about the Romans to interpret contemporary government policy is by definition disingenuous.