> I've now uploaded my drivers licence, a photo of my passport and still apparently that's not good enough for them.
After the recent news about >150 million drivers' license photos being stolen from an ID verification service, I'd be very hesitant to do this for anything I didn't absolutely need. ID theft is a lot easier when someone has a photo of your sensitive documents.
My lone claim to fame, now harder to track down because Twitter decided my lack of activity was somehow suspicious and killed my account, was a brief exchange with Phil Schiller about pluralization of Apple devices.
> One need never pluralize Apple product names. Ex: Mr. Evans used two iPad Pro devices.
a number of those are Related yes, and/or the original submission that didn't get much discussion, so second submission was it. And this one is a dupe, referencing the source. Same discussion.
I suspect the people who agree to buy Jira & Confluence are not particularly heavy users of them. At least, that's the only explanation I can fathom for their continued sales.
Trump has demonstrated repeatedly, emphatically, and publicly that he does not care about the troops, or at least certainly not injured/captured/killed ones. Or minorities. Or non-citizens fighting for the country. Or citizens with non-citizen spouses/fiancees/parents.
> My Chase bank account was hacked early this year despite having 2 factor authentication, and when I contacted them to ask how, they said because the person used my actual driver’s license to verify their identity and remove my security features from the account.
I feel like that should require an in-person visit, as troublesome as that might be. A picture of an ID is not the same thing as presenting the actual ID
I almost mentioned that situation in my reply, but that's kind of the exception that proves the rule. Even in that case, someone should need to physically intervene, especially with high profile people like politicians or celebrities
I agree, particularly when it comes to removing security features. However these days it's often possible to open an account without ever showing up in person. So I think the requirements would need to vary per-account and ideally be selected by the customer. (Personally I would opt out of any and all account changes without an in person visit if I could.)
Sometimes I feel it's a blessing that for even a minor change my banks make me visit the branch and ask for my real Govt issued IDs (often more than one) while also make me do the online auth (Govt ID; needs OTP and biometric) and still make me submit self-attested print-outs and then add a delay to it (and even reject once in a while if they feel the signature didn't match..and then the cycle restarts :D). I know, I know - there is a solution of this on hn and it will even scale handsomely. But I'd rather have my hard earned savings safe.
Wouldn't this also mean Gmail, Facebook, etc are no longer safe? The person can simply provide this documentation as proof they own the accounts and claim they were hacked.
The algorithms helped give us the single most dysfunctional and corrupt US administration since the 1800s.
reply