Pay pal security measures

[melmerby]

27 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

Yes but it wouldn't take it in the past because it doesn't start with 7 (all mobiles in UK start 07)

I've had that problem with some sites that ask for a mobile, a landline is not accepted.

[Metr0Land]

43 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I've had that problem with some sites that ask for a mobile, a landline is not accepted.

 

TV Licensing used to be a problem online.  They demanded a mobile phone number despite there being no laws to compel us to own one, and you couldn't complete the online application without a number in that field.  So each year I gave them a different one like 07971 777777 or 07971 111111 etc etc.  I never gave them my real one.

 

Fortunately they seem to have changed at last.

[melmerby]

Just now, Metr0Land said:

 

TV Licensing used to be a problem online.  They demanded a mobile phone number despite there being no laws to compel us to own one, and you couldn't complete the online application without a number in that field.  So each year I gave them a different one like 07971 777777 or 07971 111111 etc etc.  I never gave them my real one.

 

Fortunately they seem to have changed at last.

Strange that as I have been purchasing a TV license online for donkey's years and never gave them a mobile number.

[Vistisen]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

Fair enough, but Mobiles are no more secure than landlines (in fact less so) when used for passcodes etc.

It is just laziness when companies try to force one mode only (for reasons of security) when the alternative is equally valid and secure.

It is after all an automated arrangement where a passcode is randomly generated, a phone is called to relay that information to the user to enter on a website.

It doesn't matter what number the system calls as long as the customer answers and enters the code they hear/see

The original post was about using Sms to provide two factor authentication. So using mobiles to do this IS about security. And yes you can possibly use a land line for two factor authentication, but only if you are ordering from home. The whole point about authentication is to prove who you are, not where you are. Anyone can answer a landline. But a mobile uses face recognition, or fingerprints or a code. If you chose not to do this on a mobile then it is the same as leaving your house unlocked. You get what you deserve.

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Vistisen

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Vistisen said:

The original post was about using Sms to provide two factor authentication. So using mobiles to do this IS about security. And yes you can possibly use a land line for two factor authentication, but only if you are ordering from home.

The whole point about authentication is to prove who you are, not where you are. Anyone can answer a landline. But a mobile uses face recognition, or fingerprints or a code. If you chose not to do this on a mobile then it is the same as leaving your house unlocked. You get what you deserve.

As I never order anything whilst out of the house (all ordering is done on a desktop) then who else is going to answer the phone?

Forcing me to use a mobile is totally pointless.

[Vistisen]

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

As I never order anything whilst out of the house (all ordering is done on a desktop) then who else is going to answer the phone?

Forcing me to use a mobile is totally pointless.

We seem to be going round in circles. One last try, Pay pal are not doing this just to annoy you. They are doing it because the vast majority of the customers DO use mobiles, Do order things from their mobile phones, and DO NOT want to have their identities misused by fraudsters

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, Vistisen said:

We seem to be going round in circles. One last try, Pay pal are not doing this just to annoy you. They are doing it because the vast majority of the customers DO use mobiles, Do order things from their mobile phones, and DO NOT want to have their identities misused by fraudsters

Yes, because some will not understand that some of these measures are discriminatory when they don't need to be.

A landline when you are home based and do all your ordering from there is just as secure as a mobile with whatever security you want.

Why cut off the others who don't use mobiles or don't use them to any great extent (Pay Pal did however accept my landline number which is all I want, however, some others wont)

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

Yes, because some will not understand that some of these measures are discriminatory when they don't need to be.

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with 'discrimination' - a term which can be commonly misused, as in this instance.

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Nothing whatsoever to do with 'discrimination' - a term which can be commonly misused, as in this instance.

Yes it is

Up to 30% of older people dont have a smartphone but do have a landline so eliminating them is discriminatory, even if not intentionally.

[Reorte]

14 hours ago, Vistisen said:

The original post was about using Sms to provide two factor authentication. So using mobiles to do this IS about security. And yes you can possibly use a land line for two factor authentication, but only if you are ordering from home. The whole point about authentication is to prove who you are, not where you are. Anyone can answer a landline. But a mobile uses face recognition, or fingerprints or a code. If you chose not to do this on a mobile then it is the same as leaving your house unlocked. You get what you deserve.

 

Oh please,

 

if there's a security flaw there (living with people untrustworthy) then it's from having a system that remembers payment details for the sake of a minor convenience so that someone in the same house could make a payment and answer the phone.

 

If you're not using a mobile it's not very likely (not impossible, but not likely either) that you're going to be ordering from anywhere else.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Reorte

[kevinlms]

9 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Yes it is

Up to 30% of older people dont have a smartphone but do have a landline so eliminating them is discriminatory, even if not intentionally.

Metr0Land gave an example earlier, of where he'd incorrectly tried to enter a landline number, once he had taken out the '0' of the area code for an international formatted number, it worked.

 

If a badly designed website, doesn't allow proper entering of phone numbers, then it's poorly written and is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is where someone deliberately sets out to do something to separate people.

 

Discrimination is the act of making distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

 

But this conversation is getting ridiculous, since your mind is made up.

[Penlan]

I also live in an area where there's no mobile signal, in fact in the Village there's probably only 30% coverage.
When visitors/holiday makers come, a regular scene is people walking around, or leaning out of upper story windows  etc., looking for a signal.
As I've basically been in lockdown for 10 weeks (I'm in the vunerable and age group), what chance of using my mobile?
However to date, I'm not aware of any PayPal problems.
I use a basic mobile for contacting home when I'm away.   
A service provider once commented, ".. I make more calls in a day than you do in a year". 

[TheQ]

10 minutes ago, Penlan said:

I also live in an area where there's no mobile signal, in fact in the Village there's probably only 30% coverage.
When visitors/holiday makers come, a regular scene is people walking around, or leaning out of upper story windows  etc., looking for a signal.
As I've basically been in lockdown for 10 weeks (I'm in the vunerable and age group), what chance of using my mobile?
However to date, I'm not aware of any PayPal problems.
I use a basic mobile for contacting home when I'm away.   
A service provider once commented, ".. I make more calls in a day than you do in a year". 

Same here, except my mobile is only switched on in emergencies, I'm still on my First £10 after at least 5 years..

[Metr0Land]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Metr0Land gave an example earlier, of where he'd incorrectly tried to enter a landline number, once he had taken out the '0' of the area code for an international formatted number, it worked.

 

 

 

I never said I'd incorrectly entered the number and then corrected it. I'd tried to enter my landline number in the past (correctly) and PayPal rejected the landline.  I gave the example of how I'd entered it this week, correct format and all.

 

BTW I have to disagree with you saying it's not discriminatory.  We have laws here about indirect discrimination.  eg you don't set out to discriminate but in the end you effectively have discrimination which may not have been intended but nonetheless exists.  Older people are less likely to use mobiles, and people in my area are generally older and live in an area which is hilly, has low population density and poor mobile phone coverage even where masts exists.  Thus under UK law you could well be setting up a case of indirect discrimination.

[Reorte]

6 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

I never said I'd incorrectly entered the number and then corrected it. I'd tried to enter my landline number in the past (correctly) and PayPal rejected the landline.  I gave the example of how I'd entered it this week, correct format and all.

 

BTW I have to disagree with you saying it's not discriminatory.  We have laws here about indirect discrimination.  eg you don't set out to discriminate but in the end you effectively have discrimination which may not have been intended but nonetheless exists.  Older people are less likely to use mobiles, and people in my area are generally older and live in an area which is hilly, has low population density and poor mobile phone coverage even where masts exists.  Thus under UK law you could well be setting up a case of indirect discrimination.

 

Going off-topic here but it does irk me when the word "discrimination" is used in such matters. Perhaps an undesirable or even unacceptable situation but not one that properly fits the word I feel. I take a dim view of things that start insisting on mobiles but I wouldn't say that I'm being discriminated against for not having one.

 

IMO to be labelled discrimination an action should have to be deliberately working against a group rather than not bothering to cater for it (which isn't to say it shouldn't cater for that group). Such redefinition of terms always leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Reorte

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Metr0Land said:

 

I never said I'd incorrectly entered the number and then corrected it. I'd tried to enter my landline number in the past (correctly) and PayPal rejected the landline.  I gave the example of how I'd entered it this week, correct format and all.

 

 

There is no technical reason why a landline cannot be used for validation of a service. As long as the intended party can receive and enter a correct code number, within the allowable time frame. The time scale can very from a few minutes, to 24 hours from my experience.

 

If you look through my posts, you won't find me saying that you must/should use a mobile. It is a question of choice, I do use a mobile for such services, because I'm just as likely to use a service while I'm out, for example internet banking. As a self-employed tradesman, there is no ifs or buts, about whether I need a mobile with me - it's essential.

 

However, it is up to the service provider to allow a correctly formatted number to be entered. Not doing so, is poor practice on the part of the provider. Is it discrimination, to fail to do so? Not in my book.

 

It sounds like PayPal has fixed an error. Will everyone now be happy?

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Metr0Land said:

 and people in my area are generally older and live in an area which is hilly, has low population density and poor mobile phone coverage even where masts exists.  Thus under UK law you could well be setting up a case of indirect discrimination.

It may surprise you to know, that large tracts of Australia have no access to mobiles at all! Satellite is the only option. 

 

Under your statement of UK law, why do some parts of the UK, not have coverage? Is it discrimination - no it's a commercial decision.

 

In Australia, the federal government (Telecommunications Acts are a federal responsibility) subsidises some 'black spot' areas, notably in bush fire prone areas. However, it is very expensive to do so (indeed some mobile towers were badly damaged or even destroyed in the fires earlier in the year) and the entire country will never be covered for mobiles. Doubtless, you have a similar 'black spot' program in the UK.

[melmerby]

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/

 

 

[Vistisen]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

Yes it is

Up to 30% of older people dont have a smartphone but do have a landline so eliminating them is discriminatory, even if not intentionally.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289167/mobile-phone-penetration-in-the-uk/ 5% do not have a mobile phone ( you do not need a SMART phone for SMS two factor.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Vistisen said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289167/mobile-phone-penetration-in-the-uk/ 5% do not have a mobile phone ( you do not need a SMART phone for SMS two factor.

Part of the argument was that people order via their mobile phones, therefore they should have the SMS via their mobile phones

30% of older folk have no smartphone = no smartphone ordering, therefore why force an SMS to a mobile phone (smart or otherwise) ?

Edited June 8, 2020 by melmerby

[Vistisen]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Part of the argument was that people order via their mobile phones, therefore they should have the SMS via their mobile phones

30% of older folk have no smartphone = no smartphone ordering, therefore why force an SMS to a mobile phone (smart or otherwise) ?

Do you actually read my posts?

 They do it to stop fraud. The costs of which are passed on to you and me. That's why,  Feel free to carry on thinking they are out to get you, but life is too short for me to carry on pointing out the same thing. 'Over and out'

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Vistisen said:

Do you actually read my posts?

 They do it to stop fraud. The costs of which are passed on to you and me. That's why,  Feel free to carry on thinking they are out to get you, but life is too short for me to carry on pointing out the same thing. 'Over and out'

Yes I actually read your posts and you keep banging on and on and on that we must have sms via a mobile for security which IMHO is total tosh.

All I want is some companies that don't allow a landline number to do so.

Why is that not secure? Arguing that anyone can answer a landline so it's not secure doesn't wash as they can't do anything with that SMS/passcode unless they are actually logged on to the computer making the purchase which would have caused the passcode to be generated in the first place.

To be using the computer needs several levels of security to be overcome (If you are doing it properly) and with extra protection software running I consider that is pretty secure.

Most reported fraud these days seems to be with mobiles anyway due to their ubiquity so that's where the fraudsters seemed to be concentrating their efforts.

 

BTW the 70% of older folk that have smartphones doesn't mean that all those 70% actually use them for purchasing.

Unlike youngsters there is no desire from many older folk to do everything by phone.

Possibly like me their first smartphone was not a planned purchase but because is now little choice in phone shops other than smartphones, it is almost inevitable you will end up with one

 

[Nick C]

Landlines are not secure. Not in any way, shape or form. There is quite literally no security features whatsoever on a landline phone line, just two wires with an analogue electrical signal passing down them. It's utterly trivial for a malicious person to open the street-corner BT cabinet, connect to any line they like, and eavesdrop on the conversations thereon. 

 

The whole point of two-factor authentication is that it requires two different things - something you know (your password) and something you have (your mobile phone, or another device), or occasionally something you are (e.g. fingerprints).

[TheQ]

On 08/06/2020 at 15:31, kevinlms said:

It may surprise you to know, that large tracts of Australia have no access to mobiles at all! Satellite is the only option. 

 

Under your statement of UK law, why do some parts of the UK, not have coverage? Is it discrimination - no it's a commercial decision.

 

In Australia, the federal government (Telecommunications Acts are a federal responsibility) subsidises some 'black spot' areas, notably in bush fire prone areas. However, it is very expensive to do so (indeed some mobile towers were badly damaged or even destroyed in the fires earlier in the year) and the entire country will never be covered for mobiles. Doubtless, you have a similar 'black spot' program in the UK.

Err no

[AY Mod]

18 hours ago, melmerby said:

All I want is some companies that don't allow a landline number to do so.

 

Not all landline providers have the capability to handle text-to-landline; that's why it's not a standard form of communication.

 

That fact alone demonstrates the futility of continuing to demand that they provide a service which suits an individual.