They aren't out to "destroy" your security, it's a liability threshold calculation. At the end of the day secure yourself in life, this include choosing banks that are more stringent based on your needs and what you want to pay.
adb backup com.google.android.apps.authenticator2
there are also more user friendly backup apps such as helium, but adb works quite nicely.
If you're into cryptocurrency, the Trezor will also act as a U2F device.
Mobile signature (SIM-based)(0) is the most secure method as far as I've seen in banks. Citing wiki: "supporting the authentication on the Internet with a parallel closed network like mobile/GSM and a digital signature enabled SIM card is the most secure method today against the man in the middle attack."
You can manage your risk somewhat by:
1) Using credit and not debit cards for day to day spending.
2) Maintaining your long term wealth in separate accounts at separate institutions and not linking them directly to anything except your checking account. This minimizes what can be stolen if your checking account is compromised, and makes it less likely that your savings can be stolen directly (account number is used in fewer places).
3) Turning on all the alerting and notification settings you can find, so that you'll hear about unauthorized activity immediately.
In US it seems #freemarket is putting externalities (security) on the customer.
It also provides wire transfers, which are a little more secure because they're push only, but also less secure because they're instantaneous and irreversible. All banks charge at least ~$15 per transaction and they're really only used for high value, time sensitive deals.
And even if you enable it someone needs to forge your signature under direct debit order to allow someone to charge you.
So still no.
Many companies (and individuals) in Europe publish their account numbers on their letter head and website, it really isn't a big deal.
Anything else seems security by obscurity.
More like corporatist government regulations are putting the burden on the customer.
I don't deny that there are _corporatist government regulations_ (which largely prevent the best qualified engineers/entrepreneurs from wanting to tackle the consumer fintech problems), but banks are dragging their feet and the #freemarket hasn't developed a viable alternative yet.
A requirement "out-of-band communication [..] before any outbound wire transaction can be attempted" easily turns the processing cost (not price) from $0.02 to $20+ per transaction, a thousandfold increase, and that's assuming that this'd be offered as standard product and not a special case for a single customer.
If it's not made as a standard product, then it's really painful - it would mean that either the whole staff&systems would have to be trained for that customers needs (not likely unless you're bringing 10+% of the whole bank's revenue) or the customer wouldn't be able to use any standard banking channels ever, not the normal branches, not the normal online services, not the normal call centres, only directly through your private bankers.
I had somebody buying products on Amazon using my company's IBAN numbers. Amazon were super frustrating to deal with. They kept asking for my amazon account details and I kept explaining that the company doesn't have an amazon account. They didn't know how to proceed ! But in the end they did reverse the charge.
My girlfriend had somebody buying groceries using her numbers. They just write numbers in and signed the sheet of paper at the store. The store refused to take responsibility for doing this without ID-ing the person. The police were more understanding.
If you keep your PIN secret it's a very secure system (unless the attacker is very lucky).
If you have enough dollars, a private bank type thing works too.