4 ms·
Spooky23 seems to be implicitly relying on uniqueness that is leveraged by the underlying message routing system. With the case of "123 Main St, anytown, AK" th
by ngneer 8y ago
Spooky23 seems to be implicitly relying on uniqueness that is leveraged by the underlying message routing system. With the case of "123 Main St, anytown, AK" there is an implicit assumption that no one else lives at that address. With the case of "spooky23@example.com" there is an implicit assumption that the mailbox is not shared.
Hoarding numbers serves the very purpose of ensuring a unique assignment. For instance, if "the" department of transportation did not have a "global" database, then it would risk minting the same number twice. That having been said, it is true that knowledge of a "master" identity is not a requirement for making payment arrangements.
- Spooky23 8y agoWhat’s the anticipated trust level? For most commerce, I need to be able to tell that you are the same “Spooky23” who was here last time. If you need to positively and authoritatively identify me, collecting numbers is not sufficient. End of the day, these companies are either overcollecting for convenience or doing a poor job of collecting information for compliance purposes.
- maccard 8y ago> End of the day, these companies are either overcollecting for convenience or doing a poor job of collecting information for compliance purposes. Or both. Overxollecting makes sense at a global level (all systems the same everywhere), but even if they only collect what they need they're clearly not treating it correctly