Whilst that is indeed true for the population in general, politicians are a bunch of people self-selected on being the kind who wants power.

That kind of personality is generally less trustworthy (and more on the sociopath side of the spectrum) than the general population.

There’s actually a study published ages ago in the Harvard Business review about corporate CEOs (so, not politicians but in many ways similar) which found that the ones who got the job not because they sought it but because of other reasons (for example, the CEO died and they were the next in line) actually performed better (as measured by the performance of the companies they led compared to the rest of their industry) than CEOs who had sought that position and, even more interestingly, the most self-celebrating showoff CEOs were the worst performing of all (from my own participation with politics I would say those would be the closest in personality to top politicians).

Further, there are various pretty old sayings (back from the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Romans) about the best person to get a leadership position being the one who doesn’t want a leadership position.

So I would say that most politicians in parties with higher chances of getting power (so, in most countries, the two largest parties) are crooked (not specifically corruption - such as getting money to pass certain laws of using certain companies for government contracts - but more generally using power, privileged information, influence and connections to benefit themselves even to the detriment of those who voted for them: a good example of crookedness but not corruption is how some US Congressmen use insider information they get in some Congressional Committees to profit in stock market trading).

Well, I haven’t really made any large wire transfers to accounts outside the EU from that bank in over a decade so can’t really confirm or deny.

I do know that in past experience with banks in general, the people checking the validity of suspicious transations (and large transfers to accounts outside the EU tend to fall into that classification given the prevalence of online scams from countries were the Law is a bit of a joke) will actually call you, or at least they did in the UK some years ago (pre-Brexit) which was the last time I had experience with something like that.

(At one point I also worked in a company that made Fraud Detection software).

Maybe they switched to SMS to save money, I don’t know.

Ah, I see.

Your point is that the use of a secondary channel for a One Time Pass is still an insecure method versus the use of a time-based one time password (for example as generated in a mobile phone app or, even more secure, a dedicated device). Well, I did point out all the way back in my first post that SMS over GSM is insecure and SMS over GSM seems to be the secondary channel that all banks out there chose for their 2FA implementation.

So yeah, I agree with that.

Still, as I pointed out, challenge-response with smartchip signature is even safer (way harder to derive the key and the process can actually require the user to input elements that get added to the input challenge, such as the amount being paid on a transfer, so that the smartchip signs the whole thing and it all gets validated on the other side, which you can’t do with TOTP). Also as I said, from my experience with my bank in The Netherlands, a bank using that system doesn’t require 2FA, so clearly there is a bit more to the Revised Payment Systems Directive than a blanked requirement for dynamic linking.

It think you’re confusing security (in terms of how easy it is to impersonate you to access your bank account) with privacy and the level of requirements on the user that go with it - the impact on banking security of the bank having your phone number is basically zero since generally lots individuals and companies who are far less security conscious than banks have that number.

That said, I think you make a good point (people shouldn’t need a mobile phone to be able to use online banking and even if they do have one, they shouldn’t need to provide it to the bank) and I agree with that point, though it’s parallel to the point I’m making rather than going against it.

I certainly don’t see how that collides with the last paragraph of my original post which is about how the original thread poster has problems working with banks which “require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking” which is an element of the most secure method of all (which I described in my original post) and is not at all 2FA but something altogether different and hence does not require providing a person’s phone to the bank. I mean, some banks might put 2FA on top of that challenge-response card authentication methods, but they’re not required to do so in Europe (I know, because one of the banks in Europe with which I have an account uses that method and has no 2FA, whilst a different one has 2FA instead of that method) - as far as I know (not sure, though) banks in Europe are only forced to use 2FA if all they had before that for “security” was something even worse such as username + password authentication, because without those regulations plenty of banks would still be using said even worse method (certainly that was the case with my second bank, who back in the late 2010s still used ridiculously insecure online authentication and only started using 2FA because they were forced to)

I literally said 2FA over SMS is not secure because of weaknesses in the GSM protocol.

It’s still more secure than username + password alone, but that’s it.

Those little boxes are just a bit of hardware to let the smartchip on the smartcard do what’s called challenge-response authentication (in simple terms: get big long number, encode it with the key inside the smartchip, send encoded number out).

(Note that there are variants of the process were things like the amount of a transfer is added by the user to the input “big long number”).

That mechanism is the safest authentication method of all because the authentication key inside the smartchip in the bank card never leaves it and even the user PIN never gets provided to anything but that smartchip.

That means it can’t be eavesdropped over the network, nor can it be captured in the user’s PC (for example by a keylogger), so even people who execute files received on their e-mails or install any random software from the Internet on their PCs are safe from having their bank account authentication data captured by an attacker.

The far more common two-way-authentication edit: two-channel-authentication, aka two-factor-autentication (log in with a password, then get a number via SMS and enter it on the website to finalize authentication), whilst more secure that just username+password isn’t anywhere as safe as the method described above since GSM has security weaknesses and there are ways to redirected SMS messages to other devices.

(Source: amongst other things I worked in Smart Card Issuance software some years ago).

It’s funny that the original poster of this thread actually refuses to work with some banks because of them having the best and most secure bank access authentication in the industry, as it’s slightly inconvenient. Just another example of how, as it’s said in that domain, “users are the weakest link in IT Security”.

It’s “mieren neuken”.

A dutch person responding to my post already mentioned it.

Also, as somebody who has moved there first and then learned Dutch whilst living there, I do recommend just learning it over there since it’s a much faster way to learn a language when you’re there surrounded by native speakers, with lots of things written in Dutch around you and with Dutch TV and Radio whilst actually using it, than it is as just learning from the outside with little in the way of useful practice with the actual experts of the actual language.

Also you can easily get away with using English in The Netherlands whilst you’re learning Dutch - in fact if you have a recognizable accent from an English-speaking country it’s actually hard to get the Dutch to speak Dutch to you in the early and mid stage of learning their language since they tend to switch to English as most Dutch speak that very well.

That word isn’t originally from Portuguese from Portugal (though it is recognized thanks to the prevalence of Brazilian soap operas in Portugal) so it carries no broader “social” meaning and isn’t even commonly used there, so people wouldn’t care if you used it in Portugal as it just sounds odd there.

If I understand the broader meaning subtleties of how it’s used in Brazilian Portuguese correctly, using “garota” for a woman is a bit like using “chick” for a woman in British English, which whilst not an outright insult carries a bit of a demeaning vibe (not as bad as the used of “bitch” - as in “my bitch” - in American English, but the same kind of treating women as inferior).

This is probably because the original meaning of the word when not used for an adult woman (again, only in Brazilian Portuguese since it didn’t exist in Portuguese from Portugal) is “young girl”.

Yeah, it does sound like they’re opposite sayings.

I wasn’t aware of the French saying, but was of the Spanish one, plus there’s one which is exactly the same as the Spanish one in Portuguese.

That said, feeding “Plutôt qu’être seul mieux vaut être mal accompagne” to DDG gives pretty much only results with the saying “Mieux vaut être seul que mal accompagné”, which is the same as in Spanish and Portuguese, so I’m thinking that the lyrics of the song are in fact purposefully reversing the well known saying “Mieux vaut être seul que mal accompagné” for impact.

Portuguese in Portugal has a slang word for queue, which is exactly the same as the Brasilian Portuguese slang word for queer.

I have on more than one occasion had to explain to Brasilian acquaintances that I had not just stated I was going to visit a queer person but that I was going to stand on a queue.

I’ve lived in a couple of European countries and speak 7 different European languages (though my German is kinda crap and my Italian not much better) and regularly take the piss by playing the “ignorant foreigner” with the expressions in other people’s languages and acting as if, by translating them literally, I totally misunderstood them.

This works great because there are so many expressions in pretty much all languages which are have entirelly different meanings when interpreted literally but the natives don’t really think about it like that because they just learned that stuff as a whole block of meaning rather than having reached it by climb the language-learning ladder from “understanding the words first” as foreigners do.

For example the English expression “I want to pick your brains” which has quite a different and more gruesome meaning if read literally or one the dutch expressions for “you’re wasting time in small details” which translates quite literally to “you’re fucking ants” and is my all time favorite in all languages I speak well enough to know lots of expressions in.