iPhone 6(S)(+) Two factor authentication?

wby0

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 12, 2019
1
0
Whenever I try to log in iCloud to access "Find My iPhone" from my MBP, it sends a notification to my phone asking whether I would allow the login.

I'm traveling to an area where it's probable my phone would be pickpocketed, so obviously I want to turn that off, but reading the support documents it says once it's on there's nothing I can do.

Is that true? Is there a way for me to turn off that notification on my phone when I sign on iCloud on my MBP?

Thanks!
 

sean000

macrumors 68000
Jul 16, 2015
1,603
2,021
Bellingham, WA
I wouldn’t turn off two-factor authentication. Just make sure you have a copy of your recovery key.
https://support.apple.com/en-gu/HT202649

You can also register more than one trusted text number. I have my wife’s iPhone number listed and she has mine, so if either of us loses a phone the other can verify the iCloud authentication.
 

Shirasaki

macrumors G4
May 16, 2015
10,028
3,914
No. Just like iOS update: once done, no turning back.
Make sure to have plenty of backup verification methods available so that you can have a much higher chance to access your account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breezygirl

Ruskes

macrumors regular
Jan 4, 2019
135
38
You can have more then 1 phone number to choose where to send the 2FA code.

I suggest setting up and using Google Voice Phone number as your backup!
In the case you lost or your Phone was stolen it is good to have it.
upload_2019-2-11_22-23-51.png

You can always access it online (with any kind of device) to see the message with code you got from Apple.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
2FA should be mandatory & should never be allowed to be disabled.
You can say the same type of thing about passcode/Touch ID/Face ID and yet the option to not use them is there as it has basically always been.
 

chabig

macrumors 604
Sep 6, 2002
6,771
3,981
I'm traveling to an area where it's probable my phone would be pickpocketed, so obviously I want to turn that off...Is there a way for me to turn off that notification on my phone when I sign on iCloud on my MBP?
No. It's not obvious why you would want to turn that off. suppose a pickpocket gets your phone. You go to iCloud.com on your MacBook Pro and track the phone, send a message, erase or lock the phone. So what if the thief sees a message on the screen? (I'm not even sure whether the message is displayed while the phone is locked.)
 

NoBoMac

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 1, 2014
2,848
1,183
(I'm not even sure whether the message is displayed while the phone is locked.)
This.

Will get a general notification saying someone is signing on. You need to unlock the device to see and ok the actual alert.

And for other notifications, personally, don't need to see EVERY notification on my lock screen, so, most are disabled there and have the "preview only when unlocked" on for those that will be on lock screen.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chabig

Superrjamz54

macrumors 6502
Dec 4, 2015
499
314
You can say the same type of thing about passcode/Touch ID/Face ID and yet the option to not use them is there as it has basically always been.
So you want somebody to be able to use stolen phones? The reason they do that is so any phone that’s stolen has little economic value so to make it not worth the while to actually steal,the phone.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
So you want somebody to be able to use stolen phones? The reason they do that is so any phone that’s stolen has little economic value so to make it not worth the while to actually steal,the phone.
Are you saying that passcodes/Touch ID/Face ID therefore should be mandatory and people shouldn't be able to decide for themselves how they want to use something that they own? Interesting that there hasn't been pretty much any outrage over Apple and other companies allowing for such options for all these years.
 

Superrjamz54

macrumors 6502
Dec 4, 2015
499
314
I am saying that people shouldn’t have the ability to profit from stealing a phone. Making sure that there’s a system that actively prevents that and can’t be removed is an awesome thing and should be required by all phone manufacturers on startup. The only people that benefit from the lack of two factor authorization is criminals and the police. If you want your phone to be stolen and sold for top dollar is up to you. But it then no insurance company or police station should do anything but laugh in your face and say too damned bad. People should not be allowed to fully help thief’, but make it harder for them to be stolen. If your stupid enough to not put passwords on the device then once again nobody should help you when all of your information is stolen and/or used against you.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
I am saying that people shouldn’t have the ability to profit from stealing a phone. Making sure that there’s a system that actively prevents that and can’t be removed is an awesome thing and should be required by all phone manufacturers on startup. The only people that benefit from the lack of two factor authorization is criminals and the police. If you want your phone to be stolen and sold for top dollar is up to you. But it then no insurance company or police station should do anything but laugh in your face and say too damned bad. People should not be allowed to fully help thief’, but make it harder for them to be stolen. If your stupid enough to not put passwords on the device then once again nobody should help you when all of your information is stolen and/or used against you.
Requiring a DNA sample would probably make it all even more secure.
 

Superrjamz54

macrumors 6502
Dec 4, 2015
499
314
Requiring a DNA sample would probably make it even more secure, why not make that a requirement for unlocking the device?
Maybe that’s next, but anything that prevents the theft of phones is a good thing and should be automatically done to begin with.
 

BasicGreatGuy

macrumors G5
Sep 21, 2012
14,302
14,214
In the middle of several books.
I am saying that people shouldn’t have the ability to profit from stealing a phone. Making sure that there’s a system that actively prevents that and can’t be removed is an awesome thing and should be required by all phone manufacturers on startup. The only people that benefit from the lack of two factor authorization is criminals and the police. If you want your phone to be stolen and sold for top dollar is up to you. But it then no insurance company or police station should do anything but laugh in your face and say too damned bad. People should not be allowed to fully help thief’, but make it harder for them to be stolen. If your stupid enough to not put passwords on the device then once again nobody should help you when all of your information is stolen and/or used against you.
In my opinion, Apple does a very poor job of educating the customer, in regards to Apple policy and practice. The membership here is the exception.

When a person buys a iPhone or Mac, there is no physical literature or direct digital link (during setup and general use) explaining the practicalities and Apple policy of various procedures. That is why so many are and were shocked to find out they couldn't turn off 2FA.

Apple's support pages are a joke (in a bad way). They are not straight-forward and direct for the new Apple owner. Not everyone is technically inclined.

In my opinion, Apple should be more upfront and empower the customer with knowledge, so that he or she can make an informed decision, regardless of whether or not Apple agrees. Have the customer sign a digital waiver absolving Apple of all responsibility, if the customer wants to turn off 2FA.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
Are you saying that passcodes/Touch ID/Face ID therefore should be mandatory and people shouldn't be able to decide for themselves how they want to use something that they own?
Interesting idea. I own my car but am not allowed to disconnect EPA pollution components. Have to use only approved headlights. Keep the mandatory third rear brake light. Wear my seat belt, not text while driving. Have valid insurance and registration. Not park illegally. Use only unleaded gas. Not run people over. Not down a six pack before I drive it. And myriad other restrictions.

But I own it, should be able to use it as I want to right? Life is sooo unfair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
Interesting idea. I own my car but am not allowed to disconnect EPA pollution components. Have to use only approved headlights. Keep the mandatory third rear brake light. Wear my seat belt, not text while driving. Have valid insurance and registration. Not park illegally. Use only unleaded gas. Not run people over. Not down a six pack before I drive it. And myriad other restrictions.

But I own it, should be able to use it as I want to right? Life is sooo unfair.
I guess they might as well have DNA authentication to get into and start a car too.

And that aside, why isn't there basically any outrage over all the years about passcodes/Touch ID/Face ID not being a forced requirement in the name of safety?

Brings to mind that whole "Will somebody think of the children!" phrase and all that goes along with it.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
They have breathalyzer start interrupters.
They definitely do. I wonder what it would be like if that became a sudden standard for all cars for everyone for every start of the car.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
They definitely do. I wonder what it would be like if that became a sudden standard for all cars for everyone for every start of the car.
It would really cut down on drunk driving. Save a bunch of lives. You may be onto something. Also a lot cheaper than autonomous vehicles.

I used to think blind people not driving was self regulating but.....

 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
It would really cut down on drunk driving. Save a bunch of lives. You may be onto something. Also a lot cheaper than autonomous vehicles.

I used to think blind people not driving was self regulating but.....

I wouldn't disagree. Nevertheless, I do wonder what the reaction would be like to an all across the board standard like that (and why it hasn't been put in place so far).
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
I wouldn't disagree. Nevertheless, I do wonder what the reaction would be like to an all across the board standard like that (and why it hasn't been put in place so far).
Seat belts just to mention one thing was an across the board standard. People bitched, that what they do. So what seat belts still there.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,944
17,594
Seat belts just to mention one thing was an across the board standard. People bitched, that what they do. So what seat belts still there.
There's certainly that. Part of it all though is weighing the different aspects of what goes into it all given that there's a line where one thing or another can cross it to one degree or another. Otherwise we'd have all kinds of things in place for a long time now, like DNA checks for pretty much anything/everything, etc.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.