Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to enter
the number they send by text message. For some reason my google voice
number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to use my
old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.

WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?

--
Cheers, Bev
"Mr Panetta also revealed that the US Navy Seals made the final
decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president."
--S. Swinford, The Telegraph
[Aside from that minor error, those Seals did a fantastic job!] --Bev

Am 09.03.24 um 08:29 schrieb The Real Bev:
> Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to enter
> the number they send by text message. For some reason my google voice
> number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to use my
> old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.
>
> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?

Google seems not to be a part of the regular telephony system in the USA
and probably elsewhere. Same as WhatsApp, Signal or other Messengers. I
guess you have no SIM card for this service.

https://support.google.com/voice/thread/10031187/how-to-change-the-google-voice-number-to-be-real-cell-phone-number-with-sim-card?hl=en

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to enter
> the number they send by text message. For some reason my google voice
> number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to use my
> old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.
>
> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?

According to this
<https://support.google.com/voice/thread/1592118>

"Google Voice phone numbers are classified as land lines, just
like other VoIP service providers' numbers.  The SMS/MMS function
is spliced on, via a third-party messaging gateway.  Since there
is a higher possibility that a criminal could compromise this
technology, the banks won't allow the use of VoIP
numbers.

This limitation is being implemented by Wells Fargo (and other
banks, like Bank of America), not by Google."
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:

> Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to
> enter the number they send by text message. For some reason my google
> voice number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to
> use my old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.
>
> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?

I noticed some time ago that twitter would not accept numbers beginning
with 056 which are VOIP numbers.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to enter
> the number they send by text message. For some reason my google voice
> number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to use my
> old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.
>
> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?

I use GV, too. It is considered, because it is, a VOIP service rather
than a telco or cellular carrier. The site wants to track to a device,
not to a VOIP service. The IMEI number of your phone is gold to
trackers.

"How the Pentagon Learned to Use Targeted Ads to Find Its Targets—and
Vladimir Putin"
https://www.wired.com/story/how-pentagon-learned-targeted-ads-to-find-targets-and-vladimir-putin/

Physical phones are preferred for tracking. They want to track by
device, not by service. Even landlines are preferred over services. GV
operates much like a PBX or forwarding service using simultaneous ring
to call your phone(s). Sites won't know what are your devices to track
when you give them GV, OOMA, or other PBX/forwarding services. Some
sites won't let you use e-mail aliasing or forwarding services, either.
They want something more direct.

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

| WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?
| As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy.
Cellphones are so ubiquitous that they've become like
prison camp ID nubmber tattoos. It's assumed that you
have a number to give them. GMail is a good example. It's
a low security medium and people generally don't send
anything critical via email, yet Google wants to ID your
device and/or your cellphone in order to let you get email.
That allows them to greatly increase the volume and
accuracy of surveillance. Also, the more businesses require
that you register a phone #, the more likely that everyone
will be permanently IDed by their number.

Some services will send a computer spoken number to
a landline, but those sites are few. I'm surprised the evangelical
Christians are not calling this the mark of the beast. I guess
they're all busy texting.

Recently I was thinking of buying some stock and checked
out the options. Not only am I concerned about the privacy issue,
but I also don't want to be trusting people with my money when
getting it back requires that I have a cellphone and not lose
it. Stockbroker websites don't charge for purchases, but only
because they can automate the whole thing and collect personal
data. But what if I lose my Tracfone and can't get that number
again... then get faced with a computer telling me that I don't
seem to be me, with no human recourse? Do I need a fullscale,
$60/month phone in order to own my phone number?

I called up Schwabb to ask them about it. I got a very friendly,
competent man who said that I could just skip the cellphone
entry on the application webpage. Not true. He also said I could
sign up in person at their office. But then what if I try to make
a trade and it won't let me do it without a cellphone number?
The trouble is that no one's minding the store. If humans are
involved, it costs money... So I gave up on the investing idea. I
didn't really have much to spare, anyway. :)

On 3/9/24 11:24 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

> I called up Schwabb to ask them about it. I got a very friendly,
> competent man who said that I could just skip the cellphone
> entry on the application webpage. Not true. He also said I could
> sign up in person at their office. But then what if I try to make
> a trade and it won't let me do it without a cellphone number?
> The trouble is that no one's minding the store. If humans are
> involved, it costs money... So I gave up on the investing idea. I
> didn't really have much to spare, anyway. :)

We've been with Vanguard a long time; the bond lady was really useful
back when you could get 12% on municipals. Since then they've become
more annoying. For some transactions on our community property account
(before they set up that voice-recognition thing) they had to hear my
husband giving his SS # etc. in addition to what I told them. It never
seemed to occur to them that I could have killed my husband and was
telling my toyboy what to say while we cleared out the account. PLUS
they then needed to send a code to my cellphone. It takes forever to do
transactions that OUGHT to be possible on line, but which require a
phone call instead.

We've never been 'traders', but if someone wanted to make a fast trade
NOW within seconds as the price is changing rapidly (s)he'd be up shit
creek. Common stuff is easy with Schwab and E-Trade, but RMDs are
problematical and I end up phoning because you just can't get there from
here.

--
Cheers, Bev
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

On 3/8/24 11:55 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.03.24 um 08:29 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> Some annoying websites insist on authentication by requiring me to enter
>> the number they send by text message. For some reason my google voice
>> number is never identified as a real phone number and I have to use my
>> old phone with the $10/year SIM to receive their code.
>>
>> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?
>
> Google seems not to be a part of the regular telephony system in the USA
> and probably elsewhere. Same as WhatsApp, Signal or other Messengers. I
> guess you have no SIM card for this service.

No, I have a Keepgo data SIM which uses my google voice number to
piggyback onto 'movistar' and/or T-Mobile. When I use it to make phone
calls part of the data gets used as 'mobile' and generally more gets
used as 'roaming'. It makes my head hurt thinking about it, but I've
got 3GB of data and a year to use it, and I've only used 200 MB in 6
months. I don't need to use any of it when I'm near a free wifi hotspot.

$30 for 3GB for a year and I have to buy a few dollars worth at the end
of the year. If anybody is interested you can join through a link I
send you and we both get 3GB of free data. Just sayin'.

> https://support.google.com/voice/thread/10031187/how-to-change-the-google-voice-number-to-be-real-cell-phone-number-with-sim-card?hl=en

--
Cheers, Bev
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

On 2024-03-09 20:24, Newyana2 wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?
> |
> As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy.

No, that's not it. Not for a bank.

They want to know that you are an actual person with a phone and
contract. They have to trust the company giving those numbers.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

| We've been with Vanguard a long time;

Mutual fund? I was thinking of playing stocks. My idea was
to invest in a trash removal company. Cities are all subcontacting
to them now. Then there's construction demo. Rubbish is the
future! But even that seems risky. I can't afford to lose my modest
savings, not knowing how long I'll be able to keep working. Even
mutual funds were losing until recently. And the people who deal
in those take 1/2 to 1% commission, per year, whether you win
or lose.

| (before they set up that voice-recognition thing) they had to hear my
| husband giving his SS # etc. in addition to what I told them. It never
| seemed to occur to them that I could have killed my husband and was
| telling my toyboy what to say while we cleared out the account.

They probably figure that your boyfriend wouldn't be able to
remember 9 numbers.

The Treasury is actually a good bet for now. As long
as interest rates stay up it's virtually no risk at about
5% for t-bills. They're very efficient and there's no funny
business. You log in, enter your password, and they send a
code via email. That seems like plenty of security to me.
Anyone trying to hack it would not only have to get past all
that. They'd also need to get access to the connected bank
account, or add a new one. That latter process requires a
special stamp, in person, from a bank officer.

"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.

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.

On 3/9/24 7:14 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
>"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>| We've been with Vanguard a long time;
>
> Mutual fund? I was thinking of playing stocks. My idea was
>to invest in a trash removal company. Cities are all subcontacting
>to them now. Then there's construction demo. Rubbish is the
>future! But even that seems risky. I can't afford to lose my modest
>savings, not knowing how long I'll be able to keep working. Even
>mutual funds were losing until recently. And the people who deal
>in those take 1/2 to 1% commission, per year, whether you win
>or lose.
>
>| (before they set up that voice-recognition thing) they had to hear my
>| husband giving his SS # etc. in addition to what I told them. It never
>| seemed to occur to them that I could have killed my husband and was
>| telling my toyboy what to say while we cleared out the account.
>
> They probably figure that your boyfriend wouldn't be able to
>remember 9 numbers.
>
> The Treasury is actually a good bet for now. As long
>as interest rates stay up it's virtually no risk at about
>5% for t-bills. They're very efficient and there's no funny
>business.

>You log in, enter your password, and they send a
>code via email. That seems like plenty of security to me.

Another advantage of this system is that if you receive a code that you
didn't request you know someone has your password and has tried to enter
your account...

>Anyone trying to hack it would not only have to get past all
>that. They'd also need to get access to the connected bank
>account, or add a new one. That latter process requires a
>special stamp, in person, from a bank officer.
>
>
>

On 3/9/24 7:30 PM, 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.

> 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.

Wow. That's a lot of info to give an online company for a paranoid guy like
you... 8-O

>
> 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.

I prefer text 2FA because it's immediate. If I didn't request it and
somebody's using my password I want to know right away...

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> Newyana2 wrote:
>
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?
>>
>> As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy.
>
> No, that's not it. Not for a bank.
>
> They want to know that you are an actual person with a phone and
> contract. They have to trust the company giving those numbers.

Well, that *is* tracking to a device. They hope the device belongs to
you, and you're the one in charge of the phone when the call arrives.
Rather a stupid concept: send the code to the same phone that is trying
to log into a web form. Geez, of course the thief or hacker just must
ignore the code sent to that phone for the login they're trying to hack.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> On 3/9/24 7:30 PM, 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> Wow. That's a lot of info to give an online company for a paranoid guy like
> you... 8-O
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I prefer text 2FA because it's immediate. If I didn't request it and
> somebody's using my password I want to know right away...

Lots of sites track you by device. Some offer you a history to view of
what devices connected to your account. If a device not previously
recorded logs in, they sent you an e-mail alert saying "Was this you?"

If a hacker can easily guess your password to then have 2FA code sent to
your phone, that bodes ill for you using a weak password. Make the
password longer, don't use words, and each password should be unique to
the domain where you login (i.e., never reuse passwords). Make 'em
strong. Make them unique.

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.

On 3/9/2024 9:05 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> I prefer text 2FA because it's immediate. If I didn't request it and
>> somebody's using my password I want to know right away...

> Lots of sites track you by device. Some offer you a history to view of
> what devices connected to your account. If a device not previously
> recorded logs in, they sent you an e-mail alert saying "Was this you?"

Yup. I get those when I'm firing up a new toy.

> If a hacker can easily guess your password to then have 2FA code sent to
> your phone, that bodes ill for you using a weak password.

Agreed. But it's still IMO nice insurance to know immediately if my PW
(or a site hack?) is used.

> Make the
> password longer, don't use words, and each password should be unique to
> the domain where you login (i.e., never reuse passwords). Make 'em
> strong. Make them unique.

I use a formula. That way I can remember most of them without a cheat
sheet. Something like: $$ + Z + first 3 letters of site + my 1st
employee number + last 3 letters of site + my 2nd employee number.

BTW I got this email to my fake Gmail account a few months back:
-------------------------------
Verification Code
To verify your account, enter this code in TikTok:

684267

Verification codes expire after 48 hours.

If you didn't request this code, you can ignore this message.

TikTok Support Team

TikTok Help Center: https://support.tiktok.com/

Have a question?
Check out our help center or contact us in the app using Settings >
Report a Problem.
This is an automatically generated email. Replies to this email address
aren't monitored.
---------------------------

Interesting part is that I've never had a TikTok account. But I changed
the fake email account password anyway. Can't be too careful...

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:

> On 2024-03-09 20:24, Newyana2 wrote:
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> | WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number?
>> |
>> As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy.
>
> No, that's not it. Not for a bank.
>
> They want to know that you are an actual person with a phone and
> contract. They have to trust the company giving those numbers.

Exactly. Banking regulations require them to use 2FA and SMS is a
simple and cheap way of doing it. Not very secure, though more
secure than email. Also it's easily understood by customers, and
that's very important. AMEX send me _both_ an SMS and an email,
which is convenient but more insecure - an OTP should go to
exactly one device.

I have a TOTP client on both my phone (FreeOTP) and tablet
(andOTP) but none of my UK banks or savings accounts uses them.
One bank provides me with an OTP gadget, but that was before 2FA
became a legal requirement. I can also use their banking app to
generate a code: I think that's what will replace SMS for most
people.

That banks or banking authorities are actually thinking about the
security of these SMSs and refusing to send them to some mobile
services is vaguely encouraging.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

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.
>
Nevertheless, that's what they want.

> 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.

They will struggle in the UK soon, then. All landlines disappear by the end
of 2025 - there will only be VoIP.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > 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.
|

You said the reason for a cellphone code is to confirm
that you're "an actual person with a phone contract". When
I signed up for crypto I had to scan and upload both sides
of my driver's license.

We seem to be talking about two different things here.
If your identity needs to be checked then a cellphone
number is meaningless. If you want secure login, a cellphone
number is not necessary.

| >
| > 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?
|

Where have you been, Carlos? The Internet runs on spying and
ads. Google's whole business is giving away convenient services
in exchange for spying. Did you think they were a non-profit? Banks
are no different. Not all online businesses spy, but if the product
is free it would be naive to think they're not spying.

Most online brokers are offering trades for free. So how do they
make money? They may just hope that you'll get rich and use their
paid services later. But it's likely that they're also collecting personal
data as a source of income. Datamining. Did you somehow not
know that's an industry now? Ostrich logic never ceases to astonish
me. So many people get angry about even being exposed to the truth.
Instead they shoot the messenger, screaming about paranoia and
tinfoil hats. That's exactly what makes the datamining industry
feasible.

In just the past week I've come across this:

'Meet the guy who taught US intelligence agencies how to make the most of
the ad tech ecosystem, "the largest information-gathering enterprise ever
conceived by man."'
https://www.wired.com/story/how-pentagon-learned-targeted-ads-to-find-targets-and-vladimir-putin/

For a more in depth survy there's this app spying report by the
Norwegian Cconssumer Council:

https://storage02.forbrukerradet.no/media/2020/01/mnemonic-security-test-report-v1.0.pdf

How about Avast selling your browser history? We've got that, too:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ftc-to-ban-avast-from-selling-browsing-data-for-advertising-purposes/

I come across these articles almost daily. I come across websites
that block me reading their articles unless I enable javascript. Why?
Because it's hard to spy without javascript.

| A real actual mobile phone with a "real" number. Not a modern
| fangled googlesomethingnumber.

I have nothing against you using your "real" number, on your
"real" cellphone, for online 2FA. I only want to not have to use
and keep a cellphone in order to do business online. The US
Treasury has no problem with that. Nor does either of my email
servers *require* 2FA, much less a cellphone. Why? Those entities
are not providing a free service.

| Banks. Tradition! Stability! Not modernity.

No one was talking about banks. But I agree with you there.
I don't doubt that all banks are run by Jimmy Stewart. Like...
oh... Silicon Valley Bank, for example:

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/10/1162599556/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-failure-fdic-regulators-run-on-bank

Then of course there were the bank failures of 2008. Banks
in the US survive as an institution only because the US gov't
insures deposits.

There was an interesting talk given in Canada by a 12 year
old girl about banks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae7h8FioX0
She explains how banks are generally only required to actually
hold a tiny fraction of the money they lend. In other words, a
bank charter is a license to print money. What could go wrong,
right?

Personally I don't and would never use online banking. I had
to call my bank's office to specifically block it. My bank's local branch
is a few blocks away. A pleasant walk. An easy drive. I mostly go
there only to get cash from the ATM.

"Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote

| > 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.
| | They will struggle in the UK soon, then. All landlines disappear by the
end
| of 2025 - there will only be VoIP.
|

That's a technical distinction. In the US I used to have
a landline over copper wires. They don't want to maintain
those anymore. I then had a landline over cable Internet.
They started pricegouging. I switched to VOIP. It's still
a landline. It's still running over wires provided by my cable
company. I'm just no longer paying them an extra fee for
the phone service over the same wire.

I'd call all of those landlines. They're all anchored to the
physical address, they all use landline phones that
don't support texting, and they're all running direct over
wires. No cellphone/radio towers involved.

So maybe the situation is not so different in the US,
though that's no excuse for requiring cellphones for 2FA.

It may be decades before landlines are gone in the US.
People I know in rural areas have limited cell
service. Many don't have cable TV. But they all have
phone lines going to their houses, on the same poles as
electricity. I have a brother who's never had cell service at
home and only recently bought a Musk satellite antenna
for Internet. (He used to have a dish that went out in
the rain. :) Much of the US is similar, with rural populations
that the phone companies simply don't want to buy towers
for. It's not worth the investment to them.

I think that people living in cities and suburbs often don't
understand that the ubiquity of cellphones is not universal.
Europe is different. People are closer together, in a landscape
that's been stable for centuries. And governments are more
likely to be reining in corporations for the public good.

There was a good example of that just this week. The EU
fined Apple $2 billion and is forcing them to stop the monopoly
scam of charging a 30% cut for their app store. Apple then
revoked the developer license of Epic Games, to stop them
opening a now-legal iPhone app store that taakes a 12% cut.
Epic complained to the EU. Apple is now restoring their ability
to run their store. In the US? It's unlikely that any such control
over Apple will happen. If it does, it will be thanks to the EU.

On 2024-03-10 14:49, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | > 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.
> |
>
> You said the reason for a cellphone code is to confirm
> that you're "an actual person with a phone contract". When
> I signed up for crypto I had to scan and upload both sides
> of my driver's license.

To get a bank account?

We are in that context.

You get a bank account and in the same act you register with them your
real actual physical phone number.

>
> We seem to be talking about two different things here.
> If your identity needs to be checked then a cellphone
> number is meaningless. If you want secure login, a cellphone
> number is not necessary.
>
> | >
> | > 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?
> |
>
> Where have you been, Carlos? The Internet runs on spying and
> ads. Google's whole business is giving away convenient services
> in exchange for spying. Did you think they were a non-profit? Banks
> are no different. Not all online businesses spy, but if the product
> is free it would be naive to think they're not spying.

We are talking banks sending a code to your phone. Context, please.

>
> Most online brokers are offering trades for free. So how do they
> make money? They may just hope that you'll get rich and use their
> paid services later. But it's likely that they're also collecting personal
> data as a source of income. Datamining. Did you somehow not
> know that's an industry now? Ostrich logic never ceases to astonish
> me. So many people get angry about even being exposed to the truth.
> Instead they shoot the messenger, screaming about paranoia and
> tinfoil hats. That's exactly what makes the datamining industry
> feasible.

Ridiculous. Context, please.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > You said the reason for a cellphone code is to confirm
| > that you're "an actual person with a phone contract". When
| > I signed up for crypto I had to scan and upload both sides
| > of my driver's license.
| | To get a bank account?
| | We are in that context.
| | You get a bank account and in the same act you register with them your
| real actual physical phone number.
|

This didn't start with bank accounts. YOU are talking about
bank accounts. Real Bev started by complaining about how many
websites require a cellphone number.

If I want a bank account I go to the bank. My bank does
not have a cellphone number for me.

On 10.03.24 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They will struggle in the UK soon, then. All landlines disappear by the end
> of 2025 - there will only be VoIP.

Hardly ever read so much nonsense. We know Newyana does not have a cell
phone but he or she wants to have a big mouth in technical groups
discussing mobile technology.

For you: IP-telephone lines are landlines. Landlines are not what you
think they are. The backend is even in the UK ip-based for years.

Here in Switzerland VOIP/ip-endpoints are mandatory since 2017.

--
"Mille viae ducunt hominem per saecula Romam." (Alanus ab Insulis 1120-1202)

Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> On 10.03.24 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>> Newyana2 wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> They will struggle in the UK soon, then. All landlines disappear by the end
>> of 2025 - there will only be VoIP.
>
> Hardly ever read so much nonsense. We know Newyana does not have a cell
> phone but he or she wants to have a big mouth in technical groups
> discussing mobile technology.
>
> For you: IP-telephone lines are landlines. Landlines are not what you
> think they are. The backend is even in the UK ip-based for years.
>
> Here in Switzerland VOIP/ip-endpoints are mandatory since 2017.

Here we designate wired analogue connections running under PSTN as
landlines - nothing else. What I say is correct. There will be options to
continue the old lines for a few who cannot cope, but not for long.

https://tinyurl.com/2lgbqv49

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

A hangover is the wrath of grapes.