Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Codes sent by text message
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 05:08:14 +0100
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <eaovbkx207.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
References: <ush35k$2791b$1@dont-email.me> <usid1f$2fqif$1@dont-email.me>
 <su6vbkx86o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <usj60d$2odtf$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net LlBfhk6lq2NPMkdQtBPEXAG5jpcNuy37JQZcdscgZS8t4UPd7z
X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:agrp1bAXVyjcQjW0FKzrE8CUZ0I= sha256:gQvfE19FdIfWqPJwUiHW17HClaqeElmD3gTbJYN6DDA=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA
In-Reply-To: <usj60d$2odtf$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3820

On 2024-03-10 03:30, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 
> | >    As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy.
> |
> | No, that's not it. Not for a bank.
> |
> 
> Of course that's it.
> 
> | They want to know that you are an actual person with a phone and
> | contract. They have to trust the company giving those numbers.
> |
> 
>     An actual person with a phone contract? So you're saying that
> having a cellphone is more proof of ID than my drivers license? You've
> been drinking the kool-aid.

You can not send the drivers license online.



> 
>     At one point I played with crypto a bit. I had to upload a picture
> ID (drivers license), as well as giving them my email address and
> access to my bank account. As I recall I think they sent a voice
> message code to my landline, which is a lot more security in terms of
> proof of ID than a cellphone. The lamdline is registered to -- and
> wired to -- a physical address.
> 
>     Investing with the US Treasury does not require a cellphone.
> They send a code via email.
> 
>    My Tracfone was bought at BestBuy. At no point did I have to
> enter an ID or open an account. Tracfone officially has no idea
> who I am. I buy minutes at a drugstore every 3 months. There's
> no inherent security or proof of ID with cellphones. If I were going
> to do anything online requiring a cellphone, I'd be using that Tracfone.
> The problem, as I noted, is that if I lost the cellphone I don't feel
> confident that I'd be able to get into my account. There's no one
> minding the store.
> 
>    I ran into a similar issue with my brotyher who had a stroke. I
> tried to get his email. Google wouldn't let me. They wanted 2FA.
> He'd never set up 2FA! Apparently they saw that I was logging in
> from a different location, on a different device. There was no way
> around it. One doesn't just call a tech support person at Google.
> 
>    So it's pure bullshit for them to talk about security and even more
> BS to talk about confirming who you are. The only credible reason to
> require 2FA via cellphone is to track you.

What on earth are they going to track?

It's a bank, not google. Ask them, why they do it. It is documented 
somewhere. A mobile phone is a device that you have, that "everybody" 
has already, so they don't make you buy a gadget to identify you like 
some banks use. Ask them: I do not want to use the phone, give me the 
device. If you have enough money they give you an electronic thing like 
a key with a display.

So, if you do not pay for the device, they allow you to use a mobile 
phone. A real actual mobile phone with a "real" number. Not a modern 
fangled googlesomethingnumber.

Banks. Tradition! Stability! Not modernity.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.