←back to thread

287 points Bender | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.256s | source
Show context
nekitamo ◴[] No.45075341[source]
This is what we get for installing mandatory government backdoors all over our communications infrastructure. Unbelievable that such a critical piece of infrastructure wasn't secured properly. But after the OPM hack and the bungled implementation of CIA "drop sites" online, nothing about our government's cyber incompetence surprises me anymore.
replies(3): >>45075621 #>>45075962 #>>45076589 #
dlcarrier ◴[] No.45075621[source]
I'm really tempted to stop using phone numbers, altogether. The security is really bad, and phone numbers are used for identification almost as often as social security numbers, but there's no requirement to have one.
replies(1): >>45075691 #
jacquesm ◴[] No.45075691[source]
Technically not. But not having a working phone number will quickly become a problem when you need to interact with authorities, banks, insurance companies, the legal system etc. I remember when cell phones were becoming affordable and I thought I was clever by ditching my land line. That got me no end of trouble, then bit by bit it became more normalized to the point that if you have a landline now people look at you a little funny. Not having a phone number today would be the same as not having a landline would have been in the early 90's, and probably much worse than not having a phone was back then.
replies(3): >>45075911 #>>45076936 #>>45078864 #
1. dlcarrier ◴[] No.45078864[source]
My bank's two-factor authentication system lets the user select the communications method before logging in, so I set my phone number to a 555 exchange, making it invalid, and it hasn't cause any trouble. A teller did once notice it, but agreed it was a good idea.

There's no way the legal system could require a phone number, because the government overplays their support for the homeless, and being able to work with people that don't have phone numbers is a big part of that.