Valentina Zarya writes at Fortune Magazine that the top 2016 prediction for David Marcus,Facebook's vice president of messaging products, is the disappearance of the phone number and its replacement by applications like Facebook's Messenger. " You can make video and voice calls while at the same time not needing to know someone's phone number," writes Marcus. "You don't need to have a Facebook account to use Messenger anymore, and it's also a cross platform experience – so you can pick up where you left off whether you're on a desktop computer, a tablet, or your phone."
Jonah Berger, Wharton professor and author of "Contagious: Why Things Catch On" agrees. "For most of us, I think it's really hard to actually remember what someone's phone number actually is. We use our phones so often or we click on a button that has it. But if there was a test where you had to say, do you remember your best friends number or could you type in your best friend's number I think most of us would fail."
But not everyone agrees that Murcus' predictions are objective and disinterested. "It's all very well the company wanting to be the de facto Internet -- especially in places like India. But drier minds and eyes might wonder whether the wish to eradicate phone numbers has something to do with not everyone having yet given Facebook their phone numbers," says Chris Matyszczyk. "It may well be that phone numbers will disappear. Some, though, might wonder how making their disappearance a company theme squares with what Marcus claims is the ultimate goal: 'It's all about delight.' This one's easy. It's all about delighting Facebook."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @03:53PM
first post, bitches!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday January 14 2016, @03:54PM
What, are you going to call you plumber though facebook? Your mom? Me (I don't facebook)?
No. This problem was solved long, long ago with the invention of the address book.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:08PM
Any communication protocol that is not an open standard should be considered a non-starter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:11PM
In fact the number will stick around for a *long* time. It is basically the routing tag. Which funny enough with cell phones is just to look up another routing number.
Services like what this guy talks about will 'hide' it nicely for you. Much like DNS hides IPs from us.
Go away? Not so much.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:40PM
If phones numbers were going to go away, it would have been to be replaced by the somewhat similar and simple IPv4.
Try to get an IPv6 number from/to the drunk girl at the bar...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:12PM
Here's the other thing that I find astonishing. Not all that long ago the only ways you communicated with anyone other than in person was either phone or snail mail. Any invasion into either of those required a court order. Now people are just fine with communicating via venues where there isn't even an expectation of privacy, let alone any chance of it. Has everyone gone insane?...and yea, I don't facebook either.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday January 14 2016, @07:25PM
You don't have to answer your phone you know. Just put it on silent and check it when you feel like it : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 14 2016, @10:55PM
People are operating more on a defensive nature. Encryption is only just beginning to enter the public consciousness as something besides SciFI / Military use, and up till recently your data was never guaranteed to be safe since it traveled through so many nodes and could be intercepted at any point and recorded digitally. Phone taps used to be more difficult and there was no simple bulk collection method, so it was never even an issue to the public.
So we have ignorance about the surveillance with some people assuming that only the "bad guys" are being spied upon and cataloged. If everyone knew that profiles are built for EVERY person, and that they become a part of every person's profile that they know... well we'd have some bigger backlashes, but it isn't covered by enough media. Next are those that act defensively because they know it happens but they don't feel there is anything they can do. They are the most guilty, because they accept it and promote the culture of acceptance even if they don't really like it. At the LEAST everyone should have a strong opinion of defiance and outrage.
Third? Hmmm, I guess those are the people that think its just peachy because they are saavy enough to mind their Ps and Qs, and many are participants in such systems. I saw a post by someone involved in financial transactions who said it was scary how much data he gets any time someone even thinks of making a transaction through his service (I guess it does a check before even allowing them to proceed) and THEN he said how "cool" it was. Personally I'd start working on plugging that hole and making everything encrypted and opaque where possible. No admin should be able to see anything beyond what is necessary, but I can't speak to the details and how to handle them. Nerd's with a power-hungry overlord mentality... ugh give me an island to send them to, or at least an ethics class from a reputable institution!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday January 15 2016, @01:20AM
I don't believe that is true though. Most people I deal with have an expectation of privacy using the Internet, more than they do with a phone. The general feeling is that law enforcement have the phones locked down, but that the Internet is too 'advanced' or 'technical' for the government to get a complete handle on.
Snowden has greatly changed the public perception of it, but I still don't believe that people have no expectations of privacy. Instead they've simply resigned themselves to the fact it can't be provided by the typical providers. The more sophisticated understand that this is true for two reasons; National Security interests and business interests, both of which do fantastic jobs at regulatory and political capture.
It's not insanity, but more than likely a sense of defeat combined with apathy. When not that, ignorant cowards who willingly trade away their freedom for security. Although, with that being said, how well are the privacy providers like Whisper or Silent Circle doing? Maybe the growth rate in that industry shows people do wish for an expectation of privacy at least.
What do we really know as citizens anyways?
A) We have a Constitution that allows for our privacy
B) We have a government that refuses to respect it ideologically.
C) We have a government that lies to us about monitoring us without due process, in violation of the aforementioned Constitution governing their actions.
D) We have a government, that when caught lying, punishes nobody guilty of massive transgressions against the citizenry via epic Constitutional violations.
E) We have a government, that after getting caught, apologizes to nobody, incurs zero accountability, and then vehemently argues for ever less civil rights so it can protect us.
F) Finally, we have a government moving beyond the due process of the past (Judicial checking Executive, the Legislative checking the Executive) and towards a new system in which due process occurs after and beyond the methods of surveillance. "Due process" is only required when reading from the system, and the Constitution does *not* apply to the routine operations of the system. Those operations being assumed to be without surveillance itself, and of suitably high security, that illicit readings from this massive information database are simply not possible. Regardless of the fact the government has had all of its military intelligence and assets raped by the Chinese (its over--the USA lost everything), and we can't even secure databases of government employees, much less citizens.
Yes. Everyone has gone insane, or apathetic, or misanthropic. I don't actually know a single person that believes the world will survive, or that we will survive each other anymore. It's pretty much a matter of when the USA implodes under the weight of its tyranny and fundamental inequity of its processes.
As a country couldn't "think" or "vote" ourselves out of a wet paper bag at this point, but then again, an awful lot of people are suffering the delusion that the political process is more or less intact, functional, and the preferred venue for political reform. Talk about wishful thinking :)
The answer I think is closer to the truth, is that the average American knows they live in a totalitarian state run by monied interests, but simply lives in a state of denial and false hope that it might change back. It's easier to find a sixpack, a bong, and a reality TV show to distract us from the fact that America died while we partying it up and enjoying our freedom.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday January 16 2016, @12:38AM
All good points. The real irony here is that this time around, the election actually is that reality TV show...sad stuff.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday January 15 2016, @06:52AM
Actually, for many of these methods of communication, the people using them DO have an expectation of privacy. It's the NSA and DHS that have decided that you have no need for privacy when using 'new' methods of communication.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Saturday January 16 2016, @11:28AM
Bingo!
Think about it, all your phone calls go to the phone companies first before the other end, just like email or any chat program, yet GP thought that you have an expectation of privacy with phone calls, why?
Because decades of law and court cases that protects your privacy and forbid both phone companies and law enforcement to listen into your calls without due process.
What the NSA/etc did was to build up opposite law and court cases to strip away your privacy in electronic communications.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DECbot on Thursday January 14 2016, @05:09PM
You're all thinking about personal use of the phone. Most of my phone use is for business. Yes, internal communications between offices could be served by a product like Skype, but we're a long way off from replacing traditional phones service for businesses with any sort of app. Imagine you have a 20-year-old industrial appliance still in production and you need to make a support call. You go to dial the toll free number from the manual, but oh, no one has anything that works like POTS anymore. Traditional phone service will become like snail mail--relegated to official and business uses and less often used for personal communications.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @06:00PM
Well, you're sufferring from the "everyone's like me" illusion.
I for one use the phone almost exclusively for private purposes. Almost all work communication goes via skype.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 14 2016, @06:55PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @08:53PM
Just wait until you have contact your ISP support line via Facebook.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday January 14 2016, @03:54PM
But drier minds and eyes might wonder
Okay, I get what "drier eyes" means, but what's a "drier mind"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday January 14 2016, @09:44PM
"... but what's a "drier mind"?"
Sober?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @03:56PM
/. leftovers....
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snick on Thursday January 14 2016, @03:58PM
... of which you speak?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Arik on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:26PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:52PM
A-ha! The infamous host file troll has finally reared its thinly disguised visage here. Mod it troll.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:58PM
A-ha!
This entire post sounds like you were just talking away, as if you didn't know what to say, but said it anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @10:09PM
A-ha! The infamous host file troll has finally reared its thinly disguised visage here. Mod it troll.
-1 Troll. Done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @05:15PM
You mean friend-face?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @08:16PM
I think he means FaceTime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:44PM
A general phone-number-like identifier would be nice, especially if it allows more descriptive naming and more services. However, it should be:
1. Backward-compatible with the existing phone system and numbering. For example, if "your-name-here@usa.phone" is the new general ID style, then existing phone numbers should work with it also: "987-654-3210@usa.phone".
2. Your ownership or usability of the ID doesn't depend on the existence or whims of any one ISP or company. If Facebook bytes the dust, you shouldn't lose your ID, for example. They can optionally host it and/or process it, but they don't own "your-name-here@usa.phone" or whatever the new ID string is.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @05:51PM
If only there existed a federated messaging protocol... Oh well...
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday January 15 2016, @12:36AM
Google Hangouts meets the first criteria, in that through Google Voice support builtin, normal phone numbers can be dialed from within it.
The latter criteria isn't actually even met by the existing phone system, as whether or not your phone number is allowed to be ported often falls to the whim of whichever company you have it through at the moment. While they usually play ball, it's not 100% always possible to bring your identity along with you when you change providers.
You'd likely need some sort of cryptographic hash ID based system in order to get this degree of independence from providers that you're after. Many communications systems are experimenting with this area these days (tox, bitmessage, etc), but I'm not holding my breath on their taking over any time soon. Probably shortly after federated xmpp has its day.
In any case, at the very least backward compatibility with legacy phone systems is going to be with us for awhile. It may go nearly entirely VoIP in one form or another sooner rather than later, but there's simply too much fragmentation compared with the universality of the phone system. I'd dare say its so entrenched that even if the next iPhone comes out with voice and sms features removed, we'll still have phone numbers be the standard for communicating with everyone. Everything else is just a novelty with some added features to be used amongst a relatively small specific group of people. Even Facebook account holders don't come close to the numbers of people with phone numbers in 2016...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 15 2016, @04:06AM
as whether or not your phone number is allowed to be ported often falls to the whim of whichever company you have it through at the moment.
I'm not sure where you're located, but Line number portability is mandated where I live: [wikipedia.org]
Perhaps the rest of the world will get with the program at some point.
Originally, telephone numbers were specifically linked to geographic areas, but with the advent of digital switching and VOIP, that's no longer necessary. At the same time, with what would we replace telephone numbers? A directory owned, managed and published by Facebook? Please.
That way, they can not only spy on where folks go on the 'net, they can spy on who folks communicate with. As for the FB messenger application [wikipedia.org], it uses the MQTT protocol [wikipedia.org]. Since the protocol requires a "broker" there's ample access to gather what's euphemistically called "metadata." I haven't gone through the protcol spec [oasis-open.org] and I don't think I will, as I now know enough about it to be sure that I don't want to use it for text/voice messaging. Thanks, but no thanks.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:49PM
to do VoIP I have to go find a wifi spot that doesn't have VoIP firewalled off.
My phone cost $14.99. It makes and receives calls just fine. That's all I want it to do.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @04:54PM
Jenny Jenny, who can I turn to?
You give me something I can hold on to
I know you think I'm like the others before
Who saw your email on your Facebook wall
Jenny, I've got your email
I want to make you sweat
Jenny, don't change your email
jen at a-o-l dot net
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @06:35PM
The idea is ridiculous on its face.
Aside from the opportunity for repeating the marketroid bullshit of a FB drone, why are we even discussing this?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by CHK6 on Thursday January 14 2016, @06:52PM
The idea of a telephone number is a bit archaic as we insist in pulling it through technologies. The look of panic I get when asking for people's phone numbers is a bit humorous at times. I believe an open standard handled by the W3C would get some traction going. But the idea goes to pot when you loop in using specific technologies from FB or any other social media outlet for that matter. That's a mission loss on the launch pad in my mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @07:17PM
Fixed it for ya.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday January 14 2016, @07:58PM
I did a double-take and checked the link at:
I wonder if Facebook users will not be able to "call" people using competing XMPP servers, or if only incoming calls are allowed.
Did Facebook's backers figure out that they can not spy on connections they refuse?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anne Nonymous on Thursday January 14 2016, @07:33PM
...with Social Security numbers. After all it's a unique identifier that stays with you your entire life. What could go wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @10:03PM
Maybe the fact that they aren't unique?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2016, @09:58PM
Everybody goes to Facebook using facebook.com and Alphabet/Google using google.com,
so obviously IP Addresses are going to go away as well.