GTS is the only person on this thread with any idea what he is talking about. The only non-sensible thing he has done is bothering to argue with jimrockford at all. ("Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.") Yes, layers of security are good. Duh. That does not mean every possible security feature is a good idea just because it adds a "layer". Any security mechanism must be evaluated on its own merits, and not heralded by morons as a great idea just because it has something to do with security. As always, the decision boils down to cost (complexity, time, money) versus benefit (attack vectors thwarted). GTS rightly says you should expend your efforts taking security measures -- in multiple layers -- AHEAD of the attacker trying to compromise your machine. GTS also enumerated several low-cost measures anybody can apply. That approach is manifestly better than receiving a "security device" from every single government, financial, commercial, and medical institution with whom you exchange private data.
patl, Nobody has proposed "receiving a 'security device' from every single government, financial, commercial, and medical institution with whom you exchange private data". We are discussing whether we should receive a security device from IB. IB is a special case, for various reasons, so that it might make sense to get a security device from IB, even if it doesn't make sense to get one from all those other institutions you mention. I'm surprised that anybody, other than GTS, would accept the argument from GTS, that we should rely on the credentials of GTS to convince us that IB's security measures, or others proposed in this thread, are misguided. I'm surprised that anybody, other than GTS, would endorse the refusal of GTS to answer the questions I have posed about his professional recommendations and credentials. I also note that you, patl, just registered your EliteTrader username in the middle of this argument, and that the only posting you ever made on ET was just this one posting supporting the arguments from GTS, and calling others in this thread "morons". My guess is that you and GTS are actually the same person. My guess is that you posted under a different user name, in order to create the appearance that at least one other person actually agreed with you. Am I right? If you won't answer my other questions, would you at least care to address this one? P.S. This is a very constructive thread, and it is to IB's credit and IB Salvatore's credit that they stimulated this type of debate, and are making multiple layers of security a very high priority for the protection of their customers.
Rockford: Perhaps you could address your own question. What are your credentials and professional qualifications as it applies to security issues? Because until SL65 mentioned "multiple layers of security", you had not said anything of significance other than regarding "psychological issues" surrounding computer security. Once SL65 made his statements, you appeared to echo them. It appears to me that people with a security background view the issues somewhat differently...which is not surprising. Therefore, it would be helpful to know what your security background is. OldTrader
Will we be able to opt out on one account, while still using the security device for another account? For my main trading account, I definately want to use the token. A large amount of my net worth is in that account, and I access it from my laptop while on the road, so the token would be great for that account. I have another account with IB, though for my IRA. It is a small account, and I mainly use it for testing out my automated trading ideas so I will not want to use the security token on that account. Will this be possible?
Look again. Right next to my username, it says "Registered April 2006". That's right, I have been lurking for a year before I finally read something stupid enough that I just had to reply. Congratulations! - Pat
Whoops, you are correct, I thought I saw 2007, but in fact, it says 2006. Eh, sorry about that. If we could now return to my question. I asked whether it was true that you, patl, and GTS were the same person. I asked whether you posted under the patl username, in order to create the impression that at least one person agreed with GTS. We then saw a second post from you, patl, which failed to confirm or to deny that you are both the same person, or to respond in any way to the question. May I redirect your attention to this outstanding question?
Oh yeah, somebody opened a second account a year ago just to hold it until now to make you look stupid. Are you really that dense and paranoid? I already answered your question implicitly. Here it is explicitly: NO. Holy cow there are some real morons on the Internet. I cannot believe I just replied to Rockford. Twice. Done now. - Pat
Edited your typos for you: "Oh yeah, I opened a second account a year ago just to hold it until now to make somebody look stupid."
Salvatore, I have an Advisor master account with 3 client accounts underneath it. They are all registered to me. Can I control all 4 accounts with 1 device? Also, I already have a device from one of the old (non-FA client) accounts. Should I send that one back and start over? My view on the thread is that the updated security will be annoying in day to day use but is a small inconvenience when you consider how much customer money is at stake. Traveler