A 10-Digit Key Code to Your Private Life: Your Cellphone Number | Hacker News Reader

A 10-Digit Key Code to Your Private Life: Your Cellphone Number

nytimes.com

87 pointsaf1609030 comments

I wish ring.to was still a going concern for new users. They (Bandwidth.com) closed it to new users but existing users can stay on--ostensibly for money someday in the future--and I'm glad we've not been booted. I have six numbers parked there and only rarely give out my real mobile number.

I can exchange SMS (and MMS!) with these numbers, make and receive phone calls, and short codes even work. To me, having alternate numbers to give to companies for "security" or "identity verification" is like having a password manager: it means not having all of my eggs in one basket. (Plus, as a kind-of-bonus, ring.to has no live customer support so--as long as nothing goes wrong and I need to talk to them--there's nowhere to socially engineer to port a number away.)

I run https://smsprivacy.org/ (anonymous SMS phone numbers). You can't make calls but "a password manager for phone numbers" is a great way to describe it.

I like your idea but why would I trust your service above my carrier?

Because I don't know anything about your identity. You don't even need to give an email address, and you can access it over TOR.

I wouldn't be able to find out your identity if I tried.

This looks like a piece of submarine advertising for Sideline. A seemingly interesting service, but pretty blatant sales pitch.

I had the same feeling, especially with no mention of Google Voice, which has offered a similar ability for nearly a decade (within Google and as Grand Central prior to that). I'm sure there are other alternatives also, but there's no excuse for not mentioning Google's longstanding service.

Remember one HUGE disadvantage of Google Voice: for many of us it was never available.

Well it gets a mention after a sizable chunk of article and the service is freeish anyway.

Gotta love the optimist that thinks email addresses are less likely to be associated with their data profile.

Nice to see a little progress on the language front: The total losses in the United States from stolen identities used in crimes like credit card and loan fraud

Be sure to read the applicable 8000 word privacy policy before thinking Sideline is giving you any privacy. They share the number pair with the cell phone operator in order to make the service work, so be sure to read their privacy policy too. Oh, and make sure to understand them well and keep up with any changes.

This could have been written 10 years ago (aside from the pitch), the giveaway is it not mentions Web 2.0.

People by large still don't care.

There are VOIP providers which offer free inbound numbers with voicemail and per-minute calling, no need for a monthly fee.

Could you give a few names? I would love to check them out.

Well for one, google voice[0] is free in US (for calls within US, outside US, 1c per min ). You can receive/send messages and calls from the hangouts app, chrome extension, and the website. beware, though, you can't totally replace your phone since some services recognize it as a VoIP number and refuse to take it as a legitimate 2FA.

You do need an existing phone to get a number, which is probably better than giving your CC info to some VoIP service.

And by some, I mean (for me atleast) wells fargo, and azure.

[0]:https://www.google.com/voice

> some services recognize it as a VoIP number and refuse to take it as a legitimate 2FA

This bothers the crap out of me because a) when I'm signing up as a new customer, the company with whom I am establishing a relationship should be able to verify that I am me and then believe whatever phone number I give them and b) my "VoIP service" is more secure and less well-known than my mobile phone provider, thus reducing the attack surface for those numbers.

Possibly an anti-spam measure. If it needs to be moderately difficult to create thousands of accounts, requiring a phone number and cutting off well known bulk suppliers of phone numbers is likely an effective strategy.

The first page is a good start: http://www.google.com/search?&q=free+incoming+voip+calls

How many people are concerned about the data tied to their phone number but still use facebook?

FYI: you can search for someone on Facebook (and perhaps elsewhere) by their cell phone.

only if you are dumb (or blind by the san-francisco alternate reality) enough.

sadly, the alternative is to have to, over and over again, skip the page your service providers ask for your phone after every login. Even after you have something actually secure like OTP generation keys exchanged.

Blockchain

And to think we used to have books full of these secret numbers...

While it may read as an advertisement, I see that as a warning.

Keep separate phone numbers to maintain separate profiles (ex: one for healthcare, one for banks, one for social medias). Don't give your permanent phone number. Don't share the number between class of services.

And above all, don't give other people number!!

Fun thing: the other day, I was asked my phone number at my family doctor. I gave a cellphone number. Then they asked for an "emergy contact" phone number.

My answer: 911. They insisted. So I explained that in case of emergency, I want them to call 911. Seriously, don't try to call anyone else.

Their answer: but what if we really need to reach you?

My answer: I already gave you my cellphone number. Call me on my cellphone if you really need to reach me.

That isn't what emergency contact means in this context.

You missunderstood them. The number they are asking for is: if you are seriously sick and they need to call someone to ask them how to treat you, who should they call?

They aren't trying to to contact you. They are trying to contact someone on behalf of you.

You should call back, apologize for your snark and give them a useful number (unless you truly have no family or friends at all).

He mentioned "dont try to call anyone else"

And when the first responder arrives and asks what medications you are on, unconscious you will say?

Maybe he has no allergies, isn't on any medication, or he wears a medical alert bracelet thing.

If you don't have someone in your life that's reliable, it's more dangerous to list someone unreliable.

My mom would be a reasonable emergency contact for me. My pop would be an awful one for me because he can't remember his own allergies and meds schedule, let alone mine.

> If you don't have someone in your life that's reliable, it's more dangerous to list someone unreliable.

No. Your pop would know how to get a hold of your mom, and that is all that's needed.

They are simply a point of contact, to get things started. Someone who knows something about you, or can find out.

He would know you are on some meds (even if he doesn't know which ones), and could probably get into your house and search your cabinets to find out.

He would know where you work, and can call your boss to say you are not coming in. The nurse at the hospital can't do that.

It's better if it's someone reliable, obviously. But if that's not available anyone who knows you is better than no one.

No, he'd give potentially inaccurate information, which is worse. Sometimes it's better to not have a contact listed.

I'd be tempted to hook up a Twilio number and henna the number on me, in addition to a medical alert bracelet.

You're causing a huge hassle for your family if you wind up dead. Emergency contact is also used for next-of-kin. If you have literally no one else in your life that you think cares if you are suddenly killed, then consider your obtuseness justified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com