4 ms·

>This sounds stupid to say because it is - stupid-ly obvious. But since it is also stupidly profitable, it's a problem without any solution. In the US, phone

>This sounds stupid to say because it is - stupid-ly obvious. But since it is also stupidly profitable, it's a problem without any solution. In the US, phone numbers are now as important as social security numbers, in that you need one to access a bunch of online services. That so much else is attached to that phone number and that the phone is its own weakness is unforgivable. I worry, however, that the mitigation will come in the form of tying identity into the phone to an even greater degree.

jrootabega 4y ago
We've had a misunderstanding here. I think there is a clear improvement: a set of phone credentials that you use in public situations where you might be snooped or robbed. Those credentials can only let you do limited things, and most certainly would not be allowed to modify device or account security.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  Your original comment was unclear on what the differing credentials would be used for, and it's not a bad idea. It does depend on people being conscientious in public and using the passcodes appropriately, but programming can't mitigate that much. I'm more concerned about how much a phone is expected in the first place, for more and more things. Last year I went on a trip with some friends, and half of the places we went required apps for tickets or even parking, and even a hotel we stayed at was strongly pushing an app. If I'm flying somewhere, I still get a printed boarding pass because I don't want my phone to be the single point of failure that prevents me from flying if a freak accident happens between check-in and the gate.
  - bookofjoe 4y ago
    Sort of related: about once a week when I'm watching TV using Apple TV, when I try to use ESPN or Live TV apps, instead of just coming on they display a QR code for me to scan with the option of going to some website to log in. Since I do not keep my phone with me when I settle in to watch TV, this requires me to get up and go get the phone or use my computer to proceed. Very, very annoying. Why should I have to have a second device at hand to watch TV?

jrootabega 4y ago

We've had a misunderstanding here. I think there is a clear improvement: a set of phone credentials that you use in public situations where you might be snooped or robbed. Those credentials can only let you do limited things, and most certainly would not be allowed to modify device or account security.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
Your original comment was unclear on what the differing credentials would be used for, and it's not a bad idea. It does depend on people being conscientious in public and using the passcodes appropriately, but programming can't mitigate that much. I'm more concerned about how much a phone is expected in the first place, for more and more things. Last year I went on a trip with some friends, and half of the places we went required apps for tickets or even parking, and even a hotel we stayed at was strongly pushing an app. If I'm flying somewhere, I still get a printed boarding pass because I don't want my phone to be the single point of failure that prevents me from flying if a freak accident happens between check-in and the gate.
- bookofjoe 4y ago
  Sort of related: about once a week when I'm watching TV using Apple TV, when I try to use ESPN or Live TV apps, instead of just coming on they display a QR code for me to scan with the option of going to some website to log in. Since I do not keep my phone with me when I settle in to watch TV, this requires me to get up and go get the phone or use my computer to proceed. Very, very annoying. Why should I have to have a second device at hand to watch TV?