Find the perfect gift for the grad in your life with Graduation gifts that connects us from AT&T.
Need help understanding your bill?
kttnguyen4558's profile

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

Friday, June 30th, 2017 1:26 AM

Authorization Code And Account Number

Hi,

First, let me introduce a possible scenario (from my own caseJ

  1. Let’s define A as the owner, the one In charge of the phone account P, and let’s call A the administrator.
  2. Let’s define B as an adult (me, who got a stroke several years ago,) who participates in a Family Plan F that A is the one in charge of the account. Another word, A is the administrator.
  3. In summary, A is the administrator, and B has a Family Plan F from A.

 

My questions

  1. Is there any reason that AT&T asks B for an authorization code or an administrative account number?


I mean, B is an adult, and all B wants is to delete/reset B’s voicemail box. B does not want to delete nor reset anyone’s voicemail boxes, especially A’s voicemail box. As acknowledging, B has no authority whatsoever to delete or reset his own voicemail box!

If B is a teen (and A is a parent,) asking for an authorization code or an account number makes sense. But here, B is not a child!

  1. How does one know B is > 18 years old?

    From A. When A registers for a line for B, he will be asked if B is > 18 and/or has an authority on the own voicemail box.

    If B < 18 → May require an authorization code or an account number.

    If B > 18 and has no authority (e.g., 18 year-old teen) → May require an authorization code or an account number.

    If B > 18 and has authority → Should have no requirement of an authorization code or an account number on his/her own voicemail box.

ACE - Sage

 • 

117.6K Messages

7 years ago

 Only those with authorization and the account PIN code can manage their own, or anyone else's line, features, buy phones, etc.  Much like a debit card for a bank account, without a PIN code, you get nothing.  

 Owner, secondary user, retail authorized purchaser, no matter the age, etc.  Everyone must have the PIN code to prove they are who they say they are.

 

 As for voicemail.  Each user has the right to privacy and may set their own voicemail code.  It's no one else's business what the code is or snooping in their text or voice mail

 

 

ACE - Expert

 • 

14.3K Messages

7 years ago


kttnguyen4558 wrote:


If B > 18 and has authority → Should have no requirement of an authorization code or an account number on his/her own voicemail box.


You're missing the important part here: In order to "have authority," the account owner must provide you with the PIN. If they do not, you do not have authority, no matter your age. 

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

7 years ago

This is my question. Please re-read. I am trying to get rid of a stupid bureaucratic procedure!

 

Someone suggests that the authorization code or the account number is like a debit card PIN. My counter argument (please, I have no intention to attack the poster. I just give a counterargument, so that the issue becomes clearer.) is that the PIN itself does not constitute a form of ID. It does indicate that you, as a customer, do have a right to receive a service at the bank. For example, a ID thieve can have your PIN, but he/she cannot have your identity. The fact that the bank has thought it was you, just because the bank did not see the face and/or signatures. So the bank provides a service. Had the bank  seen the face and/or signature, the thieve has a harder time to do the criminal act.

These happened to me at least twice, one in AZ, and one in CA. In AZ, a Caucasian lady walked into B of A, trying to cash a (stolen) check. The bank teller compared the faces (I am Asian,) the names, and the signatures, then gave me a call to confirm. In CA, the bank compares the signatures before they could proceed.

There is another clearer example. At an ATM of your bank, if anyone has your PIN, he/she can theoretically empty out your bank account. This is the main reason why B of A caps out at $400 a day.

Those examples just to show you the PIN is not a form of an ID at a bank. The matter of fact here is that, if a person does not have a PIN, the bank has the right not to provide a service.

Similarly to the PIN, with the authorization code or the account number, anyone who has these numbers can be guaranteed a service.

I think, if anyone is an adult and has an authority from the account owner, there is no need for an authorization code or the account number, especially if that person wants to modify his/her own (voicemail) box!

 

ACE - Sage

 • 

117.6K Messages

7 years ago

You can argue in circles about the analogy working for you or not , it changes nothing.  ATT requires all users be able to give the PIN as a form of authorization to access and make changes on the account.  

Is it enough security?  Probably not, but it's part of the security.  Any access or changes are also cause for an email to be sent to the account owner within minutes.  

You can read about different user permissions here. https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KM1009073

 

ACE - Expert

 • 

14.3K Messages

7 years ago


@kttnguyen4558 wrote:

This is my question. Please re-read. I am trying to get rid of a stupid bureaucratic procedure!

 

Someone suggests that the authorization code or the account number is like a debit card PIN. My counter argument (please, I have no intention to attack the poster. I just give a counterargument, so that the issue becomes clearer.) is that the PIN itself does not constitute a form of ID. It does indicate that you, as a customer, do have a right to receive a service at the bank. For example, a ID thieve can have your PIN, but he/she cannot have your identity. The fact that the bank has thought it was you, just because the bank did not see the face and/or signatures. So the bank provides a service. Had the bank  seen the face and/or signature, the thieve has a harder time to do the criminal act.

These happened to me at least twice, one in AZ, and one in CA. In AZ, a Caucasian lady walked into B of A, trying to cash a (stolen) check. The bank teller compared the faces (I am Asian,) the names, and the signatures, then gave me a call to confirm. In CA, the bank compares the signatures before they could proceed.

There is another clearer example. At an ATM of your bank, if anyone has your PIN, he/she can theoretically empty out your bank account. This is the main reason why B of A caps out at $400 a day.

Those examples just to show you the PIN is not a form of an ID at a bank. The matter of fact here is that, if a person does not have a PIN, the bank has the right not to provide a service.

Similarly to the PIN, with the authorization code or the account number, anyone who has these numbers can be guaranteed a service.

I think, if anyone is an adult and has an authority from the account owner, there is no need for an authorization code or the account number, especially if that person wants to modify his/her own (voicemail) box!

 


I think you are still missing the key thing here: the ONLY way a rep on the phone can verify you are authorized is the PIN. The rep can't see your face and compare it to anything. They don't have voice-recognition software. It's a lot easier for an ID thief to get your name than a PIN. By requiring both your name and the PIN, the rep can be reasonably sure you are actually the authorized party. 

Not finding what you're looking for?
New to AT&T Community?
New to the AT&T Community? Start by visiting the Community How-To.
New to the AT&T Community?
Visit the Community How-To.