Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cdrnsf's commentslogin

We had a Time Warner tech blame moisture in the air impacting the (sheathed) cable for an outage.

Like most infrastructure in LA, it's always under construction and yet never improving. We lived there for about 5 years and it took them as much time to add a mile of carpool lane to the 405.

I just use the bank's website.

Many banks require you to two-factor authenticate with an app on your phone.

I've yet to encounter one in the US, but I suppose that would make me install it.

Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).

It’s a surprisingly hard thing to search for online…


Capital One now for a while and a local credit union. Amex does provide this as an option but supports SMS as well.

Within the EU, there is a law that mandates accessibility without a smartphone. The banks will sell you some proprietary dotcode scanners then which are all manufactured by the same crappy UK company (as a sidenote).

But the upside is: they work offline, and makes your 2FA app unhackable because it's not an app and instead a physically separate device.

If you're as serious about your opsec as I am, I heavily recommend to not use apps on smartphones for banking.


They're all going to move that way - it's sort of fundamental to PassKey. It can be done with just a laptop and their built in hardware but I suspect that since everybody has a mobile phone the UX will be built around that more often than not.

I quite like it though. At one of my banks I don't even use a password. My browser has the right material (from a prior authn) and then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.


> then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.

That’s exactly what I don’t want though. I don’t want to be tied to a bank app that requires a non-rooted device/whatever other checks it does.


>Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).

Do you mean SMS codes or a Chase Bank App?

I have to deal with the former because I auto-delete cookies when I close tabs and use Multi-account containers on Firefox.

I've never been required to install any application (Chase branded or otherwise) on my phone in order to use the Chase website. I'll note that I've been a Chase customer since they acquired Chemical Bank in 1996.

Am I missing something important here? If so, I'd love to hear about it.


Chase allows both SMS and their app to be the 2nd factor; I dislike both of those options and would much rather TOTP

> Which banks do you use?

My local credit union (TechCU) does none of that nonsense, and I highly recommend a credit union over any of the big banks in any case.


My chase only allows sms or call 2fa. Wish they would add passkeys or other options

2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost.

> 2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost.

The all new modern push notifications! Pay only 99ct per 2FA message, that's a steal deal!


For now.

Maybe they should investigate why the idiots in ICE tried to get into the Ecuadorian consulate in Minneapolis and then threatened staff when they were denied access.

source:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2026/jan/28/footag...

What I can tell is ICE starts to open a door, and a clerk immediately stops them and ICE shut the door a second later. The clerk opens the door to further tell them they are not allowed to enter. The ICE person states they will not try to enter and if the clerk touches them, they will yank the person out of the building. ICE then leaves.

I'm not ok with what ICE has been doing. But, it feels like a bit of a stretch to call this threatening staff, to me. Saying what will happen if the other party escalates feels like a different axis than threatening. Def taken as another data point in a sea of overreach however.


> The ICE person states they will not try to enter and if the clerk touches them, they will yank the person out of the building.

I'm not sure what the agent has to do to qualify as a threat to you, but at the very least this is thuggish behavior. The embassy is Ecuadorean sovereign territory where the staff have immunity from US laws, threatening to yank someone out of there is like extracting someone from Ecuador by force. It's highly offensive.

If you tried that at a US embassy you'd probably be shot, but it's generally impossible because they are all heavily secured and fortified.


I don't think that it's reasonable to see this behavior as anything but threatening given the location and the ample context provided by ICE's behavior up to this point.

> The ICE person states they will not try to enter and if the clerk touches them, they will yank the person out of the building.

Does that not amount to a threat?

It sounds as though most of these agents are poorly trained at best. https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ice-unloads

> “The brand new agents are idiots,” an experienced ICE agent assigned to homeland security investigations told me.

> The new ICE officer continued: “I thought federal agents were supposed to be clean cut but some of them pass around a flask as we are watching a suspect,” observing as well that the new guys “have some weird tattoos.”


> Does that not amount to a threat?

"If you touch me, I'll break your jaw" has been ruled by courts to not be a threat.


If it were said by a masked agent who is part of a group of rampaging thugs murdering bystanders in the street, I would see it as a threat.

Not voting for them.

They're going to give this more scrutiny than they did to Hegseth leaking sensitive government information.

They weren't concerned about privacy of US citizens so much as they were about their ability to directly influence the platform.

The agencies in question are unlikely to face any accountability. The agencies that would typically investigate something like this are no longer independent and, instead, are headed by feckless Trump loyalists. It doesn't matter whether it's legitimate, it matters whether it serves their ends. If they cared about process or the law they wouldn't have been labeling the victim a domestic terrorist within minutes of ICE agents murdering him.

A future administration absolutely can and should prosecute every single ICE employee.

Dissolve it and DHS. Investigate every single ERO agent and prosecute those that meet the bar. Bar all of them from future public service. Prosecute agency heads.

They're all getting pardoned.

Federal pardons only work for federal charges, which murder isn't.

A future administration cold, but won't, choose to ignore the law about parsons just like this one is ignoring the law about murder and torture.


I believe they will try to use removal to get it into federal courts.

Does removal let a federal pardon apply to a state crime, even if it's tried in federal court?

Good question. I suppose Trump doesn't much care, he already attempted to pardon that lady who gave balloting material to Mike Pillow. He'll just go issue the pardons and let the courts sort it out.

Or he could have the DOJ charge all of ICE, get the cases removed to federal court, then do an Eric Adams job on them. That'd be a sight to behold.


Are pardons issued by a felon actually valid? It is for a future court to decide in a subsequent administration.

Unfortunately as long as that felon was elected president, yes.

The odds of that happening are zero.

Yes, but they might not stop the states from prosecuting them.


There's no reason to believe that ICE, DHS or any other agencies will use this data carefully, judiciously or in good faith. Instead, it's quite clear at this point that all they will do is abuse the power they do have, execute and antagonize anyone they disagree with and then lie despite ample evidence to the contrary.

I'd say Palantir should be ashamed for facilitating this, but their entire business model is built around helping the government build an ever more invasive police state.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: