It’s A Numbers Game

The current obsession with phone number longevity as a trust signal in fraud detection is, I believe, becoming increasingly problematic. Let me break down why I think those organizations are  approaching this all wrong:

First, let’s consider what’s happening in the mobile landscape:

The fundamental assumption that a long-held phone number equals trustworthiness is falling apart at the seams. While companies like Prove (with their Trust Score™) continue pushing this narrative, I see several critical flaws with this logic.

Taking a step back, there are two competing forces at play here:

1. Consumer Freedom: Number portability has given users unprecedented mobility between carriers – precisely what we wanted for a healthy, competitive market.

2. Security Theater: The notion that tracking a number’s “age” somehow translates to security – which I’d argue is becoming more fantasy than fact.

What mainly concerns me is how this creates a perfect storm of vulnerabilities. Think about it: carriers only maintain limited historical records after porting, creating massive blind spots in the system meant to protect us. It’s like trying to verify someone’s residence history but only having access to their current lease.

I’m especially skeptical of how this impacts legitimate users versus fraudsters. Someone who’s had “their number” for 20 years but switched carriers multiple times might struggle to prove their legitimacy and longevity, while sophisticated fraudsters are already exploiting these gaps through targeted porting attacks.

In my own case, my primary phone number has been mine since 2001 and has traveled from the long-established Baby Bell, to a top 3 cable operator and eventually to my current VoIP provider, where it’s been for almost ten years. That number resides inside a leading CLEC, along with numerous other numbers of many users of VoIP services, some like me, which are paid for, and other numbers that are free, and in some cases, disposable.

The fact that my number resides there is my carrier’s choice, and their customers’ numbers, like the “fraud prevention” gnomes ding mine as risky because it’s not with one of the three primary mobile operators who seem to be “trusted” more, even though my phone number has been mine for 24 years.

What’s particularly frustrating is that we already have better tools at our disposal. Modern fraud prevention should be looking beyond the numbers and taking a deeper look at:

– Real-time behavioral analytics

– Sophisticated multi-factor authentication

– Dynamic risk assessments that adapt to changing threats

Instead, we’re clinging to this outdated notion that longevity equals security – it’s like using a sundial in the age of atomic clocks.

Looking ahead, the industry needs to rethink its approach to trust signals fundamentally. The mobile landscape has evolved dramatically, but our fraud detection methodologies seem stuck in the past. Until we embrace more dynamic, real-time security measures, we leave the door open for increasingly sophisticated fraud attempts.

The irony isn’t lost on me, as the very systems designed to protect consumers are becoming their worst enemy. While number portability was a win for consumer choice, we’ve failed to evolve our security frameworks to match this new reality adequately.

I think it’s time to stop pretending that static indicators like phone number age with the current carrier are enough. The future of fraud prevention lies in adaptive, intelligent systems that understand the fluid nature of modern mobile usage patterns.¹

P.S. It’s worth noting that some carriers are starting to implement additional safeguards. Still, adoption remains inconsistent across the industry while the users of the phone number data lack the ability to obtain historical data of ownership and usage.