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

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#31

Post by herbst »

martin-adams wrote: post #28

In the UK mobile networks are required to offer number portability[1]. I don't know if that means a mobile network can take your number away, but just like managing the registrar on a domain, you can manage the portability of your number. [1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/inform...

You can in most countries as far as i know. But in my example i quit my account (so made it prepaid essentially) and lost the SIM card, which means i lost my account forever. Now it waits for the simcard to invalidate and then will most likely sell the number again. It was a "easy number" (as in people remember that number after telling them once) so i assume it will be resold rather fast.

But just because you can does not mean people want that. Before it became normal to auth everywhere with phone numbers i happily changed my number yearly.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#32

Post by herbst »

glandium wrote: post #27
aestetix wrote: post #18

+1 I do not have a mobile phone, and have run into countless issues with so-called security systems which demand a mobile number, everything from airports to online services like Twitter. It's amazing how many services become unavailable when you have no phone number to provide.

I have a mobile phone number, but it's VoIP and can't receive SMS. That excludes me from many types of services that absolutely want to send an SMS. Extra bonus, I moved out of my country of origin a few years ago. The Visa card I have from a bank in my country of origin needs 2FA to be used to purchase things on the net. The second factor is a code sent by SMS. Even if I had a phone number that can receive a SMS, th…

Welcome to my world. I have to call my mum when i want to spend something on my credit card because she now receives the verification SMS.

Not to mention that i had to lie to them as have a friend from my home country call them (imposing as me) to change the phone number (which is most likely illegal in itself) because they could not accept calls from my current country...

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#33

Post by photon-torpedo »

Somewhat off-topic, but honest question: In the article the author says that he OWNs his email domains. Is this really possible? In my understanding it's more like you rent the domain name from the registrar, and you need to keep renewing it. My question is (please forgive my ignorance in this matter): what prevents the registrar from some day raising the price for your domain to astronomical values? Maybe some well-funded business has suddenly decided that they want your domain name and they have no problem offering thousands of dollars for it. When the domain name is up for renewal, what prevents the registrar from passing it to the highest bidder?

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#34

Post by atemerev »

photon-torpedo wrote: post #33

Somewhat off-topic, but honest question: In the article the author says that he OWNs his email domains. Is this really possible? In my understanding it's more like you rent the domain name from the registrar, and you need to keep renewing it. My question is (please forgive my ignorance in this matter): what prevents the registrar from some day raising the price for your domain to astronomical values? Maybe some well-…

Because there is ICANN, and clearly defined policies on domain transfers. These can be reviewed, but it usually doesn't happen without prior warning.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#35

Post by herbst »

photon-torpedo wrote: post #33

Somewhat off-topic, but honest question: In the article the author says that he OWNs his email domains. Is this really possible? In my understanding it's more like you rent the domain name from the registrar, and you need to keep renewing it. My question is (please forgive my ignorance in this matter): what prevents the registrar from some day raising the price for your domain to astronomical values? Maybe some well-…

Author here, this is a valid thought indeed.

My point rather was is that they can not take it away from me. My specific registrar only allows themself to invalidate domains for a few days when they contain swear words. I am not entirely sure if they can increase the price while i own it. In fact last time they increased the price it did not affect me because i already owned it but only new registered domains. Even the renew was on the old price.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#36

Post by icebraining »

herbst wrote: post #13
mark242 wrote: post #10

This rant is exactly why phone numbers are a good way to do two-factor. The author lost control of their phone number ("as i quit the account shortly...") and subsequently had an extremely hard time authenticating to their bank, Google, Twitter, etc. Getting a new phone number set up is time consuming, even with a Twilio-like service. This is a good thing. Your IMEI number isn't portable, and until there is a physica…

Author here. I dont have a fixed telephone number anymore. How to handle that? I dont see why i would need one except for authentification purposes ether. My point is that depending on people have a phone number, and even more one that is widely supported (which my current numbers are not) is simply wrong. Sure i could call my bank one a month to change my telephone number, which i loose control of shortly after that…

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 initial 10€ payment is enough for years of service. Can't you get the same in Switzerland?

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#37

Post by akjainaj »

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.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#38

Post by herbst »

icebraining wrote: post #36
herbst wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. I dont have a fixed telephone number anymore. How to handle that? I dont see why i would need one except for authentification purposes ether. My point is that depending on people have a phone number, and even more one that is widely supported (which my current numbers are not) is simply wrong. Sure i could call my bank one a month to change my telephone number, which i loose control of shortly after that…

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.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#39

Post by erelde »

herbst wrote: post #31
martin-adams wrote: post #28

In the UK mobile networks are required to offer number portability[1]. I don't know if that means a mobile network can take your number away, but just like managing the registrar on a domain, you can manage the portability of your number. [1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/inform...

You can in most countries as far as i know. But in my example i quit my account (so made it prepaid essentially) and lost the SIM card, which means i lost my account forever. Now it waits for the simcard to invalidate and then will most likely sell the number again. It was a "easy number" (as in people remember that number after telling them once) so i assume it will be resold rather fast. But just because you can do…

Just to offer the other side of this, I, on the other hand, have the kept the same mobile phone number since the beginning.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#40

Post by zimzam »

This is a rant about an edge case: sure, it sucks for the author but even now few people move more than a few miles of where they are born.

Expecting a Swiss institution to seamlessly support banking from Thailand is, unfortunately, unrealistic. In the pre-internet age I doubt supported well either.

Seems like the author should have talked to their bank about how extra-territorial access works before moving rather than complaining about issues after the fact.

Phone numbers are a red herring.

Post reply on HN