[HN Gopher] Why Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile Want to Access Your B...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile Want to Access Your Bank Account
        
       Author : mfiguiere
       Score  : 37 points
       Date   : 2023-08-30 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
        
       | atomicfiredoll wrote:
       | With the number of breaches T-Mobile has had (as mentioned in the
       | article,) there's no reason to trust a company like that any more
       | personal information than strictly necessary. If they were to to
       | and corner people in to giving more, it sounds like a good reason
       | to stop doing business with them.
        
       | JEDI-HACKER wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | tomtai wrote:
       | This title feels misleading somehow. I was expecting some sort of
       | access that let them see your transactions like an open banking
       | affordability check or to get spending habit data...but it's just
       | a direct debit?
       | 
       | News came out today that MasterCard and Visa are upping their CC
       | fees so the reasoning from the carriers makes sense. If anything
       | it's good they're passing the saving on?
        
       | modus__ponens wrote:
       | https://archive.is/dAO6o
        
         | FrameworkFred wrote:
         | ha, you got me...never-ending captcha
        
           | vlod wrote:
           | What is going on with these constant captcha's? I'm human but
           | can't seem to read stuff nowadays.
           | 
           | Anyone debug this?
        
             | unknown_user_84 wrote:
             | I haven't, but https://archive.ph/ still works for me.
             | 
             | Getting infinite CAPTCHA on .is and .today.
             | 
             | *EDIT Noticed this yesterday, probably going on for more
             | than that. Makes me wonder if this is the twilight of the
             | project. From what I heard in internet rumor that was
             | always kind of the expectation from the person running the
             | thing.
             | 
             | I did a look around to see if there are any services that
             | duplicate the functionality but I didn't find anything
             | terribly compelling.
        
               | bb88 wrote:
               | I'm wondering if this might be a side effect of CGNAT.
               | Stuffing a bunch of people into one or two ip addresses
               | means you're sharing the IP with potentially other
               | abusers.
               | 
               | And to think IPv6 has been around 20 years now....
        
               | unknown_user_84 wrote:
               | Good theory. I wonder if that is some of it. Though I've
               | got a dedicated IP from my local co-op ISP and I'm pretty
               | sure I haven't done anything offensive. The issues from
               | other users makes me really wonder if this is the death
               | throws of archive.* and how in the world am I going to
               | read all these newspapers I don't want to pay for now.
        
               | bb88 wrote:
               | From my experience certain IP addresses are now less
               | privileged than other IP addresses.
               | 
               | It worked for me up until I changed my ISP. Captchas
               | usually use the IP address to determine how difficult to
               | make the challenge. Abusive ip ranges get worse
               | experiences than others.
        
             | supertrope wrote:
             | Are you using Firefox? I've noticed certain website
             | operators show lots of CAPTCHAs if you have tracking
             | protection turned on, you're not logged in to a Google
             | Account, or you've deleted your cookies.
        
               | vlod wrote:
               | I tried using Firefox and Chrome (while logged into
               | gmail).
        
           | willcipriano wrote:
           | "Like others in the industry, we are making this change in
           | response to credit-card fees,"
        
             | Arrath wrote:
             | What is driving the increases in fees from the credit card
             | companies?
             | 
             | Greed? Using the fees to fund ever more enticing rewards
             | programs to attract customers?
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | What are you going to do, NOT accept card payments?
               | 
               | The sky high rates in the US is because fuck you, deal
               | with it. It's pretty explicitly wealth transfer from poor
               | people to credit card companies, with a small kickback to
               | well off credit card users to make it popular and hard to
               | regulate.
        
               | tracker1 wrote:
               | You don't have to be well off to not buy more than you
               | can afford. That said, I'd be perfectly fine if CCs
               | disappeared altogether, and limited people to only debit
               | accounts.
        
               | jondwillis wrote:
               | Probably a combination of Greed, cost disease, and risk-
               | free rates rising?
        
       | jondwillis wrote:
       | Currently I am using prepaid debit cards (I'm sure it will only
       | be a short time until this is prevented) to pay my T-mobile bill.
        
       | kccqzy wrote:
       | A lot of credit cards offer something like "lost phone
       | protection" whereby you get reimbursed if you lost your phone,
       | but only when you pay the phone bill using that credit card. Such
       | insurance must be expensive and I suppose that's why fees are
       | increasing.
        
       | isykt wrote:
       | > About 85% of American consumers with bank accounts are
       | comfortable making recurring payments using those accounts, said
       | John Anderson. He is head of product at Plaid, a fintech company
       | that links vendors with customers' bank accounts.
       | 
       | Plaid, who got sued for abusing their access to people's bank
       | info. Fuck that guy.
        
         | gjsman-1000 wrote:
         | I, frankly, do not understand why Plaid doesn't work more like
         | Privacy.com. If a company _must_ have the ridiculous stance
         | that they need to access my bank account, and Plaid is linking
         | them together, why can 't Plaid have a popup saying, "Company X
         | will access your Bank account. Company X may not withdraw, at
         | any time, more than $25 or <fill in the blank amount here>
         | without your consent on a monthly basis. You may need to fill
         | this form again if you ever purchase or subscribe to anything
         | requiring greater amounts of money transferred. < OK > < Cancel
         | >"
         | 
         | Someone might say, "that would make Plaid require a money
         | transmitter license" or something similar. I would argue, why
         | should Plaid _not_ need a money transmitter license for
         | literally handling bank account login information?
        
       | morninglight wrote:
       | https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/why-your-wir...
        
         | everybodyknows wrote:
         | > Wireless carriers want to give you a monthly discount. You
         | just have to pay them with your bank account.
         | 
         | Not quite. The notice I got from T-mobile was that my bill
         | would go up by $5 unless I handed over my bank account info for
         | the direct charge.
        
       | alarsama wrote:
       | It is not clear in the article who will keep debit cards as
       | accepted forms of payment. At least for mobile providers who will
       | still offer debit for payment in the future, you do not have to
       | provide your bank account number. Though you do lose out on
       | credit card benefits like points/rewards and the ease of
       | disputing charges.
       | 
       | For those whose mobile providers will switch to only using bank
       | account numbers for payments and want the ability to be able to
       | block access to the account if that account number is somehow
       | compromised, I would recommend looking into Qube Money [1]. Among
       | many other awesome functions (like being a great budgeting tool),
       | it allows you to create different "Qubes" (pronounced "cubes",
       | think digital cash envelope) that you place money in and allocate
       | towards different bills. It's similar to Privacy and Capital
       | One's virtual credit cards in that each Qube is assigned a unique
       | debit card number. More importantly, each Qube gets its own bank
       | account number. Closing a Qube and opening a new Qube with a new
       | bank account number is easy. There are more great features, but I
       | figure this was most relevant to the topic.
       | 
       | [1] https://qubemoney.com/
        
         | ryaneager wrote:
         | I second the Qube recommendation. After Simple died I was
         | looking for a good replacement, Qube more then fits the bill
         | and even has features I wish Simple did.
        
       | retrocryptid wrote:
       | Because that's where the money is.
        
       | Zandikar wrote:
       | This is one thing that privacy.com is great for. If it weren't
       | for these companies no-credit card requirement, you could also
       | use something like Capital Ones virtual credit card, and those
       | aren't the only two offering such services.
       | 
       | Privacy's is especially good imo as you can set spending limits
       | and easily (un)pause cards and create new ones pretty easily.
       | Even outside of trying to take advantage of auto-pay discounts,
       | it's just a nice piece of mind to be able to be a hard check on
       | an accounting "Oopsie", mine or theres.
       | 
       | That said, not a fan of this overreach and general disregard for
       | people's money. Yes, most people are terrible at managing their
       | money, but hidden fees, auto pay not auto happening on the
       | scheduled date, and general corporate greed, disrespect and
       | distrust certainly doesn't help either.
        
         | supertrope wrote:
         | It's a balance. Individuals want to insulate themselves against
         | businesses charging the wrong amount or even committing fraud.
         | Businesses are trying to minimize losses due to customers who
         | fail to pay their bill. Hence the use of credit checks,
         | security deposits, prepaying for service, requiring a card or
         | bank account to be linked at all times(1), etc.
         | 
         | (1) I used to use Google Fi. There's simply no option to
         | receive a paper bill or to pay via check.
        
           | jen20 wrote:
           | It might be a balance, but the doublespeak makes me have a
           | strict rule these days: if I can't pay via Apple Pay, you
           | don't get my business.
        
         | byteknight wrote:
         | I love the native integration with 1Pass
        
         | proamdev123 wrote:
         | I'm interested in using privacy.com, but I'm concerned that
         | providing THEM access access to my accounts creates even more
         | vulnerability.
         | 
         | Fo they have any security protections that prevent them from
         | draining my accounts (either accidentally or via hacker)?
        
           | fourg wrote:
           | You could create a new checking account with your same bank
           | that you give privacy.com access to and keep a low balance
           | on. Still involves making sure it has enough to cover your
           | privacy.com virtual card expenses.
        
         | DrBenCarson wrote:
         | Privacy cards don't qualify for the debit card discount with
         | T-Mobile. I suspect it's the same for all the ISPs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-30 23:02 UTC)