Cell Service for the Fairly Paranoid

81 pointsposted 9 hours ago
by 0xWTF
(cape.co)

85 Comments

LorenDB

7 hours ago

> Enjoy unlimited high-speed data; after 50GB, speeds may slow to 256 kbps.

Last I checked 256 Kbps is not high speed. You can advertise this as unlimited data, or you can advertise it as 50 GB of high-speed data, but you can't call it unlimited high-speed data.

johndoylecape

6 hours ago

That's a fair point, we should change that verbiage.

quietsegfault

6 hours ago

Why can’t it throttle to something slightly higher? Even 100-200 KBps? Is that a requirement from the “upstream” network provider?

johndoylecape

5 hours ago

It's not. We chose this baseline sort of by default based on the practices of some other major carriers. Your question is a good one, and we'll take it as feedback.

altairprime

an hour ago

I would be a lot less worried about signing up for that plan if I could soft-cap myself at 10GB until I login to the app and push a button that says "yeah for real I'm going to use another 10GB of mobile data", so that if iOS goes bonkers and tries to download my entire 90GB iTunes library over cellular, it doesn't fuck me over for a month. I haven't exceeded 7GB/mo intentionally for years, but it's happened twice so far against my express wishes, and carriers are uniformly awful at that.

jauntywundrkind

4 hours ago

Google Fi has been 256k after the soft cap since they launched. Majorly embarrassing, took me tears to sign up because of this.

Comcast I think is the best? Haven't checked in a while but their mobile plan I think soft caps to 1Mbps.

gruez

7 hours ago

>Identifier Rotation

>Protect yourself from persistent tracking by rotating your IMSI every 24 hours, so you appear as a new subscriber each day.

But nothing for IMEI, which is fixed for a given device. Unless you got a new phone to use with this service, it can instantly be linked back to whatever previous service you're using. If we assume that whatever carrier they partner with keeps both IMEI and IMSI logs (why wouldn't they?) it basically makes any privacy benefits from this questionable. It's like clearing your cookies but not changing your IP (assuming no CGNAT).

The other benefits also seem questionable. "Disappearing Call Logs" don't really help when the person you're calling has a carrier that keeps logs, and if both of you care about privacy, why not just use signal?

They're asking $99/month for this, which is a bit steep. If you only care about the rotating IMSI, don't care about PSTN access (ie. no calls/texting), you can replicate it with some sort of data esim for much cheaper. The various e-shops that sell esims don't do KYC either.

bsstoner

6 hours ago

Hi -- Head of Product at Cape. This is a good question. I will say up front there is no silver bullet for privacy on cellular networks given the way they were designed to interoperate. Our strategy is to offer many different protections that collectively make it harder for your activity to be tracked.

The details of what our carrier partners can see is in the table at the bottom of our privacy summary: https://www.cape.co/privacy-summary. We add noise to their data by doing things like rotating your IMSI daily and spreading traffic among multiple carrier partners. If the data is messy enough and not associated with your personal information, there should be less monetary incentive for the carrier to try to piece it together when they have an abundance of clean data with stable identifiers and verified personal information.

Additionally, with disappearing call logs, it's about reducing surface area. Fewer logs in less places.

montyanne

6 hours ago

> We add noise to their data

It’s interesting that Apple is going down a similar path with hardware filtering location retrieval commands and neighborhood-level blurring on their C1 modems. Really awesome work from that team by making sure they’ve considered privacy as a first party feature for that chip.

How do you guys view the relative value of privacy/security at the network provider layer of the cell stack for the average user/citzen?

Even if Cape doesn’t retain metadata yourselves (eg LTE positioning info), is that data not still retained and repackaged by the tower owners themselves? Eg babel street, venntel, etc. A rotating IMEI every 24 hours might make it marginally more difficult for logical tracking, but there’s still only physically one location the phone can be in without fuzzing at the hardware level.

I should also say - I’ve been following y’all’s work for a while (and considered some of those early forward deployed engineer positions), but I’m struggling to see how this all works as a consumer product. Would be awesome to see an eventual partnership with Apple/Qualcomm to bring this to the hardware level since privacy is a tough nut to crack even at full MVNO.

bsstoner

5 hours ago

Appreciate the shoutout. We love what Apple is doing in this area. There is a lot of room for them to help improve things at the modem/hardware/OS layer.

On the tower question, you’re right, we can’t control what data is collected by the tower owners. Like I said above our strategy is to add noise through a variety of methods that makes it harder (not impossible) for anyone collecting data to track you. We also give you multiple phone numbers. I think this stuff adds up and is a meaningful improvement over the status quo for most average user/citizens.

I like to use the organic food analogy. If given the choice, why not choose the carrier that is actually making an effort not to track you vs everyone else who clearly doesn’t care?

jrexilius

5 hours ago

A sort of related question, is the user able to actually power-off the baseband carrier chip and still keep the phone powered on? I seem to recall there being some 911 regulations around that topic. But it might be a way to enable the user to at least disable that tracking vector, while still using the phone offline or via wifi?

Ms-J

6 hours ago

I've looked into this company before and when I saw who was behind it and on the team it was an immediate red flag to never use or trust this company.

Look at who Doyle has worked for previously and what connections he has. Palantir and the military, to start.

johndoylecape

6 hours ago

Doyle here :) I'm very proud of my military service!

Prior to Cape, I led the national security business at Palantir. That experience was actually the catalyst for Cape. It’s where I first learned about the massive array of vulnerabilities that exist in our current cellular networks. I saw how those gaps impacted not just government organizations, but everyday people, and I realized that the mobile phones we carry every day are perhaps the single largest risk to our privacy.

I needed that experience to understand the depth of the problem, but once I left to start Cape, that connection ended. Cape has no ties to Palantir. We aren't a subsidiary, we aren't a "front," and we don't share data with them. The only thing we took from Palantir was the desire to fix a broken system. If you want to see me and some of the rest of our founding team talk more about this topic, you can watch this video on our Instagram page here.

Another related theory I’ve seen online is that Cape is a honeypot for law enforcement. Cape is not a honeypot. It’s so hard to prove a negative, but at least I can say it clearly and out loud: Cape is not a honeypot.

We are a group of individuals who deeply value privacy. That mission carries across everything we do, from our work with the US government and allies, to everyday people, and everything in between.

We are incredibly proud to work with people who protect our country by ensuring they have secure, trusted communications wherever they are. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-18/us-navy-t...

We also work with the EFF to provide investigative journalists and activists with free Cape service so they can do their work safely. https://www.cape.co/journalists-and-activists

We partner with non-profits to support victims of domestic abuse who are facing cyber-stalking and digital harassment. https://www.cape.co/break-free

We are a young company growing exponentially, and we don't plan on slowing down. We know we have to earn your trust every day. The truth is, no one else is building a high-quality, first-class solution to these specific cellular problems. We are committed to being the ones who do it right.

Ms-J

6 hours ago

Someone doesn't need to work for Palantir or the military to understand that cellular security is fundamentally broken and completely insecure.

That is a lot of highly polished for the camera media you dropped into that post. The way that you word things, such as "Cape is not a honeypot." but don't delve any deeper, to start, gives someone less than zero confidence or trust in your words.

I have seen enough in the industry to say that your words are meaningless.

alek-cape

5 hours ago

John's account was throttled since it's new. Posting this on his behalf. ----

You're right that you don't need to do those things, but I would argue that my background made me uniquely situated to understand and care about these problems deeply enough to spend years of my life building a company in response.

I say "Cape is not a honeypot" a lot just so I don't appear to be mincing words. If you want to delve deeper on how we treat customer data, a couple of good resources are our privacy policy: https://www.cape.co/privacy-summary

And our trust page: https://trust.cape.co/

You can also check out our blog for a bunch of posts on specific features we've built, etc.

dang

an hour ago

Yikes, sorry guys (I'm a mod here). I've marked his account (and yours!) legit so this won't happen again.

It's my least favorite thing about HN that high-quality new accounts, such as founders jumping into threads about their work, sometimes get throttled by the software. Gah.

anon5739483

14 minutes ago

Maybe have an onion web service and add direct Monero payment support. This will help privacy LARP'ers get into the mood. Truth be told, if you're paranoid by any measure and use a cell phone -> YNGMI. It's not cheap enough for average person to care and not private enough for ulta-paranoid to pay and use. The whole mobile infrastructure is utterly broken in terms of security and privacy so it's still refreshing to see any kind of attempt being made in this area.

dlenski

8 hours ago

From their "Features" drop-down:

> Minimal Data Collection

> Identifier Rotation

> Secondary Numbers

> Disappearing Call Logs

> SIM Swap Protection

> Network Lock

> Encrypted Voicemail

> Private Payment

> Last-Mile Encrypted Texting

> Secure Global Roaming

"Identifier (IMSI) Rotation", "Secure Global Roaming" and "Network Lock" do look interesting *IF* they can actually address some of the baseband vulnerabilities that plague all modern devices. That's a Big If.

SIM Swap Protection you already get by using a VoIP number rather than a cell number.

And the other features are irrelevant if you're using over-the-top end-to-end encrypted messaging, like Signal, rather than Plain Old Telephone Service and SMS.

gruez

7 hours ago

>do look interesting IF they can actually address some of the baseband vulnerabilities that plague all modern devices. That's a Big If.

Baseband vulnerabilities are overhyped, imo. On proper phones (eg. pixels), their access to memory is restricted by IOMMU, which protects the rest of the phone from being compromised if there's some sort of an exploit. Once that's factored in, most exploits you can think of are "on the other side of the airtight hatchway[1]". For instance if you can hack the baseband to steal traffic, you should probably be more worried about your carrier being hacked or getting a lawful intercept order. Or if you're worried about the phone triangulating itself, you should probably be more worried about your carrier getting hacked and/or selling your location data.

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20060508-22/?p=31...

rl3

6 hours ago

Baseband vulnerabilities are overhyped, imo. On proper phones (eg. pixels), their access to memory is restricted by IOMMU, ...

That just kicks the can down the road to "Why should we fully trust the IOMMU?"

Granted, it does defend against the vast majority of actors.

fc417fc802

5 hours ago

... because that's literally the IOMMU's job? Why should we trust the TPM or the CPU or a YubiKey or anything, really? I don't completely trust any of it but to get anything done you have to trust something at some point.

0xWTF

8 hours ago

They built their own mobile core, does that help with resolving your "Big If"? I'm not a cellular guy, I don't know which pieces of the stack cover which attack vectors: I'm genuinely asking.

Also, the 50 foreign countries seems interesting.

wil421

7 hours ago

Do they own the enodeBs or the RAN? How many hops does it take to get to their core? Not sure how MVNO works maybe they have encrypted VLANs to their systems. Not a RAN guy.

alek-cape

4 hours ago

We don't own eNodeBs/gNodeBs (the RAN). We operate as an MVNO. It is worth calling out that we operate as a full MVNO though, which is different from many MVNOs in the US currently, who tend to fall on the lighter end of the MVNO spectrum.

The primary difference is we run our own mobile core entirely.

Can you elaborate on the hops question? Not sure I quite understand what you're asking since there are a few ways to interpret "hops".

qingcharles

7 hours ago

Are there solid VoIP providers that aren't detected by 2FA SMS services? I can't use my Google Voice for a decent chunk of sign-ups because it is detected (and rejected) too easily. I hate getting spam, so I try to keep my primary phone number only for friends and family.

dlenski

2 hours ago

I've used my Google Voice number as my primary number for ~15 years at this point. (I use my "real" phone number so little that I have trouble remembering it.)

I've had almost no problems using my GV number for 2FA. Venmo is literally the only service I've ever used that won't accept it for 2FA… and now Venmo offers non-SMS based alternatives, which is good because SMS-based 2FA is the reason that the SIM-swap attack is worth doing.

List of services that allow Google Voice for 2FA: https://www.reddit.com/r/Googlevoice/comments/1c571kw/crowds...

fc417fc802

5 hours ago

Serious question, what services are you using that this isn't a deal breaker for you? And why isn't it?

Most services either don't have a legitimate interest in my phone number (so they can get bent) or they do have a legitimate interest in which case not accepting my phone number means they aren't doing their #$&^ job (so they can get bent).

It helps that the only services I'm willing to provide my phone number to are those that already inherently involve my PII. Banks, online shopping, etc. So if they won't accept whatever I give them I'll take my business to a competitor.

busko

7 hours ago

Objectively, it gets even worse in regions where Google voice isn't available. The only options seem to be online SMS portals where a relatively small set of numbers are shared across many users.

If anyone knows of a good, secure VoIP provider outside of the US I'd be keen to hear about it.

dlenski

2 hours ago

VoIP.ms works great in both the US and Canada. (I believe it started here in Canada.)

Also, many Canadian financial institutions (including the CRA, Wealthsimple, and BMO) work fine with US phone numbers for 2FA… including Google Voice, in my personal experience. https://www.reddit.com/r/Googlevoice/comments/1c571kw

gruez

7 hours ago

Use sms verification services that spammers use. They're implemented by using banks of sim cards placed in some apartment somewhere, so it's as "real" as it can get.

https://cotsi.org/methodology

bryancoxwell

8 hours ago

Not sure what IMSI rotation has to do with baseband vulnerabilities?

dlenski

2 hours ago

It stymies attempts to track mobile devices over multi-day periods using their IMSIs.

Trackability is definitely a vulnerability.

throwaway57572

8 hours ago

You might check out who the CEO is here and how he runs the company and then consider whether you'd trust them. And look at the infra providers they use. Not what I would call the most upstanding bunch.

johndoylecape

6 hours ago

Hey, John Doyle here (CEO of Cape). I'm happy to dig into how I run the company, or the infra providers we use. I actually think we're pretty upstanding! If there are questions I can answer that will put your fears to rest, let me know.

loteck

6 hours ago

Can you please respond with a full throated opinion of what Palantir is today? This seems to be what everyone is thirsting for and what you are perhaps inadvertently dancing around.

rsync

4 hours ago

I’m open minded.

Seeing a warrant canary would be encouraging…

altairprime

an hour ago

They're a US mobile telco, a warrant canary wouldn't last a year here. That's not, on the surface, a useful differentiator between mobile service providers. Did you have a specific kind of warrant canary in mind that would act as a differentiator, or is there some aspect of warrant canaries I've overlooked that makes them meaningful for US telecoms that are governed by US federal and state laws, or..?

helterskelter

8 hours ago

...care to elaborate?

nxobject

7 hours ago

This probably doesn't cover what OP said, but after reading the CEO's intro post, I left a little more depressed. Make money off surveillance, and then make money off selling a privacy product.

> At Palantir, where I started in technical roles more than 10 years ago, I learned about a wide array of vulnerabilities in the cellular network that present a threat not only to mission-focused organizations in government, but also to everyday people. I came to see mobile phones — and the networks that power them — as perhaps the largest risks to our privacy and security.

> If you told Americans twenty years ago that corporations and governments would conspire to attach powerful tracking devices to nearly every adult worldwide, it would’ve sounded like science fiction. And yet, that’s not far from where we are today.

https://www.cape.co/blog/building-the-future-of-mobile-priva...

johndoylecape

6 hours ago

I hear what you're saying, though another framing would be "learn about serious problem, build company to fix serious problem."

montyanne

5 hours ago

Appreciate you sticking in here and answering the hard questions.

How does the company handle the split between your defense and consumer products? Do you see there being conflicting interests here?

johndoylecape

5 hours ago

Great question. The product is basically the same-- it's a cell phone network and we sell connectivity to it.

A helpful thing to keep in mind is that everyone has basically 2 use cases for their cell phones:

1. Send and receive calls and SMS 2. Connect to the internet

Whether you're a national security professional, an investigative journalist, or an average consumer who values privacy, that's what you do with your phone. So if we can build features that make you more secure and more private across those two use cases, we have a product that can help both government and consumer users.

Sometimes when people ask the "conflict" question they mean some version of "but doesn't the government then ask you for a backdoor to get all the data?" All we can really do here is stand by our privacy policy. We store the minimum amount of data possible, we promise not to sell your data to anyone, we notify our users if we receive legal process on their account that is not subject to a gag order, and we pledge to push back on any law enforcement request we receive that is not well formed and narrowly tailored as required by law.

The backdoor/honeypot fears are often related to the Anom story that came out a few years ago. It's not a perfect rebuttal, but the reporter that broke that story has written about Cape a couple of times. You can read those articles here:

https://www.404media.co/privacy-telecom-cape-introduces-disa...

https://www.404media.co/i-dont-own-a-cellphone-can-this-priv...

theearling

7 hours ago

Palentier and A16Z connections...

Ms-J

6 hours ago

"but... but... trust me!"

By the way, if you look at this thread you can see Cape has deployed narrative control.

rsync

2 hours ago

It would be more useful and beneficial to have a privacy oriented twilio than a privacy oriented carrier.

If we treat the carrier as adversarial, dumb pipes we can move the security and all of the capabilities into the cloud platform. A personal comms stack like this should be carrier-agnostic, phone-agnostic, sim-agnostic.

See my other post in this HN topic - I have done this since 2016 ...

buttocks

8 hours ago

Will not pass muster with FCC. Know Your Customer regulations require the company to … know the customer. They will not last.

gruez

7 hours ago

>Know Your Customer regulations require the company to … know the customer

Which KYC regulations exist for carriers? AFAIK you can walk into any store and get a SIM card. The most they ask for is maybe E911 which they don't check.

psim1

6 hours ago

Carriers both land/VoIP and wireless must attest to having fraud mitigation measures; this is the "Robocall Mitigation Database" and in Cape's record they exempt themselves from STIR/SHAKEN attestation but state they have measures to prevent fraudulent calling. (which is required for them to be permitted to operate)

What kind of measures are possible to prevent fraudulent calls when the caller is your anonymous customer? The answer is obviously "none," unless you respond to every complaint by terminating service of the offending customer and hoping they don't come back.

fc417fc802

5 hours ago

> What kind of measures are possible to prevent fraudulent calls when the caller is your anonymous customer?

Presumably some fairly basic heuristics would be sufficient. Robocalling isn't economically viable if you only get a few calls per subscription. You need to place (I assume) at least thousands of calls per day per subscription for it to even begin to make sense. Any account doing that is going to be blindingly obvious provided you have even 30 minutes worth of logs.

I can already walk into Walmart and purchase a cheap prepaid device with cash. That's pretty close to anonymous.

whiterock

7 hours ago

not in Europe no more for a few years now.

gruez

7 hours ago

"Europe" isn't a monolith, and there are quite a few countries that don't require any KYC, UK and NL to name two.

jrexilius

5 hours ago

You don't need an ID to buy a SIM in UK? I remember not needing one a long time ago but in recent years was asked for one.. maybe not a law? irregularly applied?

rsync

3 hours ago

False.

You can sign up for US mobile service, which is a Verizon MVNO, right this moment with no personally identifiable information at all.

Remember: neither the visa nor MasterCard payment networks have any support for customer name. Everyone pretends that they do, but they do not. In the absence of an additional security layer like “verified by visa “there is no way to verify cardholder name.

jrexilius

5 hours ago

I think the regulations have some loopholes for domestic use, but one I don't know how they can really get around is for international roaming, as other countries have far stricter KYC laws.

Domestically you can buy a Tmobile or Cricket with a pre-paid visa cash card and a gmail address (no ID required), but they won't work outside the US.

loteck

5 hours ago

Hi Cape team,

I'd like a service like yours that allows private signups and that works continuously to prove ongoing private operations. I don't need huge data plans, I'm fine with WiFi mostly. It needs to cost way less per month than your current pricing. It would be cool if you could find a way to serve people like me.

bsstoner

5 hours ago

Appreciate the feedback, we’ll likely experiment with different plans down the road, but for now we’re focused on rolling out as much additional privacy/security value as we can to justify the premium price point.

Doohickey-d

34 minutes ago

Another option for anonymous mobile service: https://silent.link/

eSIM, global, variable pricing per country with per-GB billing, anonymous crypto payments and no KYC. Although it seems to not have some of the additional security features of the OP.

monster_truck

8 hours ago

Do not fall for a word of this. If you've spent any time dealing with actual SIP providers (ie not the shit you'd hook an app up to, the ones debt collectors use), you'll know exactly how much you can trust them. Same difference

dguido

7 hours ago

I have a conflict of interest here (I am an advisor to Cape, also a security expert, and my company has done security audits for Cape), you should absolutely look more deeply into what Cape has created. Their service is fundamentally different than other "security-focused cell providers" (mostly snake oil IMHO) because Cape wrote their own mobile core, nearly from scratch. They control the whole software stack and have done really innovative things with it.

Here are a few things you might want to look at more closely:

Encrypted voicemail uses public key crypto: https://www.cape.co/blog/product-feature-encrypted-voicemail

How they use full control of the mobile core to detect SS7 signaling attacks https://www.cape.co/blog/product-feature-network-lock

Swapping SIMs is done via digital signatures, not customer support https://www.cape.co/blog/cape-product-feature-secure-authent...

They're the only provider that can rotate your IMSI, and do it continuously for you https://www.cape.co/blog/product-feature-identifier-rotation

They're also one of very few organizations doing original research on cell network security:

Collaborating with the EFF to release software for detecting cell site simulators (e.g, imsi catchers et al) https://www.cape.co/blog/how-eff-and-cape-collaborated-to-im...

Identifying novel weaknesses for physically tracking people on cell networks https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3636534.3690709

iamnothere

7 hours ago

Unfortunate that it doesn’t seem to support Linux phones. Phreely or Purism’s AweSIM would be a better fit for anyone running a non-Android/non-iOS setup. Hopefully they add this in the future.

mzmzmzm

7 hours ago

So it's an MVNO mostly on the AT&T network with extra privacy features? I think it still all then comes down to how you use your phone and how much you can trust the whole pipeline. I use Credo Mobile which doesn't seem totally different. https://www.credomobile.com/our-story

treetalker

8 hours ago

If anyone uses this and could tell us about your experience, please do!

dguido

7 hours ago

I use Cape every day on my iPhone. The service is excellent, and the security features haven't ever interfered with my use of the phone. They have a convenient mobile app for setting up extra features like the IMSI rotation and getting support. As a tech savvy user, it matches what I want.

I'm a target for a variety of things, and knowing that no one can SIM swap me is worth the subscription alone. The SS7 protections, encrypted voicemail, secondary numbers, IMSI rotation, etc are all a bonus.

rsync

3 hours ago

You would be better off hosting your “phone number “at Twilio and then forwarding that number to a throwaway SIM card that nobody knows the number to.

Your “phone number “that people interact with cannot be hijacked with SS7 because it’s not a real number… you’re immune to sim swaps … And you can Jettison your physical phone and SIM card at any time with no penalty.

As a bonus, because your actual phone number is now programmable you can do interesting things like set up a SMS firewall. You can, for instance, collapse all incoming text messages to ascii-256. Or truncate their overall length. Or CC your incoming SMS to a dedicated mailbox.

I have operated like this since 2016. I have no idea what my physical SIM phone number is and neither does anybody else.

mingus88

8 hours ago

I’m a skeptic. It’s only been a handful of years since Anom was backdoored by the Feds. The surveillance data provided by cell phones is simply too good to let someone work around it

https://www.vice.com/en/article/anom-backdoor-fbi-years-of-a...

johndoylecape

6 hours ago

This Anom comp comes up a lot. It's super hard to prove a negative, so no matter many how times I say "Cape is not a honeypot," the critics will just respond "that is exactly what a honeypot would say."

We're working on some ideas to address this with audits etc, but it will always be tough. However, if you like the idea, and like the features, then maybe it is worth your time to do the work and get comfortable with the company. Because we're the only ones providing some of these features, and we have a lot more in the hopper still to come. I hope we can win your trust at some point.

fc417fc802

5 hours ago

I have no particular reason to trust that you aren't a honeypot but I'd like to point out that I also have no particular reason to trust that any other cell service provider isn't. In fact given the recent e911 location data sale scandal I generally assume that all of them are.

Even if it turned out that you were in fact a honeypot, protection against SIM swapping and encrypted voicemail presumably both provide security benefits regardless.

It's similar to the situation with VPN providers. The provider could literally be the NSA themselves and I'd _still_ most likely see security benefits from using it (unless the NSA happens to be my adversary of course).

jrexilius

5 hours ago

Good luck! It's a tough sell and some people won't accept that there are people from the defense sector that really care about the Constitution. Transparency is proly your best friend. But once you sign a Qualcom or carrier NDA, you are pretty tied-up as far as open-sourcing things or transparency, I'd imagine. Still, keep up the good fight!

cucumber3732842

8 hours ago

If you're not doing "fed" level shit and just don't wanna make your petty shit trivial for the locals to dredge up that's probably fine.

Like they're not gonna burn that kind of capability over tax evasion, state civil law violations, etc.

jerlam

8 hours ago

Secondary numbers sounds neat:

https://www.cape.co/blog/product-feature-secondary-numbers

I've been using my Google Voice number for something similar. But Cape doesn't specify if/when these numbers are rotated in any way - you have three numbers to track now, and you can't retain these numbers if you switch services.

alek-cape

5 hours ago

It's probably worth calling out that this is an experimental feature, and we are happy to get any and all feedback on things we can build out around them.

They are real numbers, not VOIP. That can matter depending on what they are used for and if the entity you are expecting a message from blocks sending to VOIP numbers.

The numbers don't rotate like our identifier rotation. They are yours. You can choose to delete a secondary number in the app, and if you have less than two, create a new one after 30 days.

konaraddi

8 hours ago

I hope this succeeds and isn’t backdoored

floam

6 hours ago

There’s a chance this catches on with some folks with blacklisted IMEI’s due to a quirk on AT&T MVNOs where service works for a few days before getting halted per IMSI.

drnick1

6 hours ago

What about crypto payments?

How does this compare to silent.link?