IB Sal said (about 100 pages back) - No need to vote on 2355. We will implement a "one man one token" concept regardless of how many accounts you have. If the sub-accounts cannot trade independently nor can they move money without advisor authorization, I don't see a need for the separate token device. Perhaps IB has not yet formulated the policy officially and passed it to the CSRs. Or maybe IB Sal or IB Steve will respond here. I think they can talk to us about such matters during the IPO. Jack
So, if in my FA account, I have personally two subaccounts, then I need a separate Security device for each account? I would hope I could use just the one I have now.
Salvatore, There have been a ton of back and forth posts about this in the TWSAPI Yahoo user group. You should consider joining (it's free you just need a free yahoo account) to check them out. Some were suggesting a USB dongle, as well as other ideas. SSB
What's the probability that these security doodad thingamabobs become all the rage in security? How many will I need? (1) - broker account (assuming it works for all accounts) (1) - bank account (assuming it works for ATM/debit card, too) (3) - savings accounts (3) - credit cards (1) - US treasury account (1) - IRS account (1) - telephone line (assumes it works for the DSL, too) (0) - cell phone (I hate phones, especially cell phones) So that's a total of eleven (11) of these security doodad thingamabobs that I'll have to keep track on. I wonder if I'll be able to use my media center universal remote control to cover all the codes.
Paypal now offers what sounds like a similar dongle for only $5 - so it also makes me wonder what's so special about IB's new dongle for 150 bucks, especially if it can't hook up to the computer and automatically verify a login. I'm all for the extra security, but there's gotta be an easy way to automatically log back. Perhaps IB can accept a default password if it is used to re-login, say, within 5 minutes of a disconnected login performed via the key, especially if the reconnect is from a list of recognized IPs.
1-st e-mail from IB (Apr 27): Web-site: On the same page (for Brokers): On the same page Response from the 1-st rep: Response from the 2-nd rep: Seems IB can't realize what they are doing! And final consideration: Well said. And from the past experience we know that IB responsible for nothing anyway. Why then they annoy us with Security program?
From what I have gathered, in the future, the STP device will be used for logins, but you can opt out. Currently the STP device only controls withdrawals. Since Brokers apparently do not get an STP device, they have different rules in terms of withdrawals. Are you a Broker? If not, you can ignore this. As for the customer reps giving you different answers (pretty much the only part that you have a legitimate complaint), one of them probably didn't understand your question or misread it.
Brokers will do get an STP devices. As for broker customers, IB haven't decided yet how this will be implemented. Which is quite scary as unauthorized trading was presumably their main concern. Not withdrawals. Sorry, you missed contradiction between the two statements in official e-mail Notification and IB web site: "This system will be required for access to the Workstation as well as financial withdrawals." "If you are signed up for an IB Security Device, the security will not be required in order to login to the Trader Workstation." Those who long enough with IB know that customer reps giving different answers is a commonplace
God there are some arseholes here. If we've asked IB to do things that are different to what they originally planned and they are changing to meet our needs --- why wouldn't we be a little patient?