Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that VOIP numbers, from companies like Bandwidth, are frequently used to perform various frauds. So many financial services ban them because the KYC for real numbers is much better.

View on HN

I have more bank and credit accounts than the average person, probably. 5 bank accounts, and 8 credits accounts I can remember as active off the top of my head.

Every single one works with GVoice, except Venmo. Chase, Cap1, Fidelity, etc. Not small players.

So while I think you make a fair enough argument for sure, it doesn't seem to be the case when nobody else does it, and makes Venmo seem like a pain in the arse.

My Gvoice number works with Chase, Citi, Discover, AMEX, Capitol One. Does not work with Wells Fargo, despite allowing you to sign up with it. Took a notarized snail mail to fix that one.

In practice, these companies get a phone number I possess for 1-3 months on a travel SIM rather than the VOIP number I’ve steadily maintained for two decades and by which the US feds know me (because they don’t care).

Don't all financial institutions need some real identification with physical address to sign up? Phone numbers / email addresses should be for communication, not tracking.

KYC = know your customer?

Yes.

It has nothing to do with Kentucky’s Yummiest Chicken, if that’s what you were thinking.

Yes, and AML = Anti Money Laundering

Because VOIP requires a verified Google account and phone number, while traditional numbers can, uh, be purchased anonymously at the corner store.

Depends on which country. In places like India that’s not possible. Your cell phone number becomes a de facto identity so they require all kinds of identity documents to get a SIM.

So there's a cottage industry of middle men on the streets who will set you up with a SIM card, or a travel ticket or whatever, for people who don't have identity. (Or in some cases don't want to reveal their identity, but I reckon this is less typical.) Sure, you pay extra for the service, the middle man takes 10%, 30% or 500% and the identity is then with that person---or their fraudulent papers, I don't know how it works in detail.

It's usually the other way around - first countries introduce laws that require ID to buy a cell phone ("because criminals"), and then the phone number starts getting used as a de facto identity.

Ah yeah, good point. That makes more sense.

> while traditional numbers can, uh, be purchased anonymously at the corner store.

That is a closing window and the case in fewer and fewer places. It wont be long until most people would need to fly across the globe or get involved with organised crime to pull that off...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com