You still have to have some kind of unique identifier. What do you propose phone numbers are replaced with because I can’t think of anything that isn’t basically just the same but with a different flavour or actually is actively worse.
logicbomb@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
It’s really the phone companies’ fault for stagnating instead of innovating.
There is no reason at this point for most people to have phone numbers at all. We have the technology today to throw the whole concept out the window.
Replace it with something where a stranger couldn’t guess how to contact a random person. Replace it with something where third parties can’t easily share your contact info.
You could even have both technologies at the same time to help transition. And we do, as users, but we still need phone numbers because our carriers don’t give us multiple options directly.
Phone numbers are based on requirements for a system that’s almost 150 years old now. Back when the numbers really meant locations and before people realized how easy it could be exploited to steal old people’s retirement money.
echodot@feddit.uk 14 hours ago
GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 hours ago
Your device and account credentials are unique enough to identify you on the carrier-level. Ultimately, every time you share your contact info, it should be a unique code (QR would be convenient enough) generated by your cell provider. If it’s ever leaked, you just notify your carrier to burn it, and give the contact a new unique code. No two people should be given the same contact, and all of the contacts are simply correlated to your device by the carrier. Additionally, when sharing contacts via QR, they could be modified on the device-level to include e2e encryption keys, thus further securing the transmitted information, not at the trust-me-bro carrier level, but at the user-verifiable device level. If the carrier gets hacked, reset the identifiers, associate the new one in your text app to keep conversations going, and move on like nothing happened. You’ll still be better off than if your phone number was leaked. It’s not perfect, but it’d be a hell of a lot more secure than what we have now.
In other words: What if a billion dollar company made Signal, but with cell towers, and not as good?
CameronDev@programming.dev 12 hours ago
QR would be convenient enough
My friend, that is not convenient. Phone numbers need to be memorable, and need to be transmittable offline without relying on technology. Old people use phones…
GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
Phone numbers need to be memorable. A disposable unique contact does not. You can print a QR code, easily save it to a device, transmit it via nearly anything with a connectible screen. Of course you would want to launch it with alongside phone numbers, not in place of it, but this is what should be the next ‘innovation’ in cellular communication.
That said, it does pose the problem of contacting someone with a phone that isn’t your own, perhaps from jail. I’m sure they would never suggest putting an emergency contact chip in your hand for your own health and safety. No government would ever suggest something so silly. /s
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 12 hours ago
In Tox you have a code on the end of the Tox address. One can do similar, but have different codes for different levels of acceptance. Default - ignore. Some other code - add to the list of callers without notification. Some other - with notification. Some other - for SMS, but not calls, or the other way around. And so on.
The problem with things being memorable exists, yes. Computers can make calls, meaning that there’s no solution. A good secret required to call someone can’t be memorable.
RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
Email should work similarly.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Sure you can have a unique identifier. That’s not the issue. The issue is that anyone can contact you via your phone number! This is not a problem with chat apps where people need permission to add you to their contact list. Why not have a system like that?
Same goes for credit cards. They should need to ask for permission to charge your credit card. Merely knowing your credit card info should not be enough.
echodot@feddit.uk 7 hours ago
But then you just get spammed with requests for connection. Just like spam email, the call coming through wouldn’t be the point anymore it would be the connection request.
rollerbang@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
For CCs 3DS does exactly this, though not implemented everywhere.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 13 hours ago
As today if I give you a phone number you have no idea who is the owner if you don’t look up on some service.
It will not change if instead of the phone number we use the IMEI or a UUID, somewhere you need to have a link between the owner and the something, if nothing else in your phone and at the phone company.AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
Would you care to describe how you would implement said system? Because I can’t see how that would work technologically
logicbomb@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I intentionally was vague because there are many possible existing ways to accomplish each thing I said, and it is up to the phone company to innovate.
The simplest way to keep people from guessing phone numbers is to make them very long and sparse. If an autodialer had to dial 1000 invalid numbers before finding a valid number, it would make the endeavor that much harder. This is just a convenient example because the cryptography equivalent is harder to explain, but you could make contact info so hard to guess that it would be basically impossible.
Probably the easiest way to explain how to keep people from passing contact info is to imagine a two step process like facebook has. If I pass your facebook username to someone else, they don’t automatically become your friend. The cryptographic equivalent would involve a chain of trust, but again, harder to explain.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
I love cryptography! Technical explanation please.
Natanael@infosec.pub 1 hour ago
Literally just use existing standards (STIR/STUN) with some filtering by source network, etc
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
Still not seeing how it would work. You’re dropping random bits of the system and saying it would work but it’s too complicated for you to explain, so there’s really nothing to discuss.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
not op but signal has basically solved this. users are not just randomly accessible by anyone. they can share a long URL that contains an ID, or make a short username they like and pass around to people. and even then the recipient has to accept being contacted by each other user
nyan@lemmy.cafe 9 hours ago
Phone numbers are the equivalent of IP addresses. It’s just that the accompanying DNS solutions are pretty badly broken and the firewall options are all iffy.