3 ms·

Is this okay, even assuming it is true? I'm sure they could improve security somewhat using some form of remote attestation, so (hypothetically) only non-jailbr

by deogeo 7y ago

Is this okay, even assuming it is true? I'm sure they could improve security somewhat using some form of remote attestation, so (hypothetically) only non-jailbroken phones and PCs with UEFI signed by a trusted (by Google) key could log in. Start with a service open to everyone, and when you have enough market share, shut out everyone except major players. And of course, they don't give users the choice on whether they want this added security.

magicalist 7y ago
> so (hypothetically) only non-jailbroken phones and PCs with UEFI signed by a trusted (by Google) key could log in. They could also ban everyone without their dna on file, but I don't see any evidence for a move toward that particular scenario either :) Sounds like there's known riskier clients that have to use a different authentication band (oauth) instead. There is a line there at some point where requirements become onerous, but this doesn't seem like it to me.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  First they came for the api users but I said nothing because I wasn't an api user. Then they came for the text based browsers users but I said nothing because I wasn't a text based browser user. Then they came for the small browsers but I said nothing because I didn't use a small browser. When they came for me there was no one left to speak. Googles behavior is clearly anti-competitive. At this point it is in everyone's interests for google to be broken up into multiple companies. One might even figure out a way to be good at search again.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    But the "they" in this story is hostile third-parties trying to steal users' Google password.
- deogeo 7y ago
  I didn't mean this as a slippery slope example (though that certainly applies), but as an example of the same thing, just to a greater degree. If we're not okay with that, then why is this okay? It's the same kind of imposition, telling users what they may use.
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
Even "hackers" are willing to give away control of their devices for so called security so no wonder things like that are happening and are the norm. Most of the people argue here that Apple selling totally locked devices that you can't open with even 100 security alerts and total wipeout is totally good because of security. And mind you this is hacker news where people ought to be curious, tinker and improve. Of course ironic changes come from Google in the name of security who doesn't care about my data security or privacy and keeps following me around the internet like a pervert. I guess you can be a peeping Tom in real life too if you claim to keep your collected photos secure from other perverts and only sell the ones with blurred out faces. What's the harm if you can't see the face?

by deogeo 7y ago

magicalist 7y ago

> so (hypothetically) only non-jailbroken phones and PCs with UEFI signed by a trusted (by Google) key could log in. They could also ban everyone without their dna on file, but I don't see any evidence for a move toward that particular scenario either :) Sounds like there's known riskier clients that have to use a different authentication band (oauth) instead. There is a line there at some point where requirements become onerous, but this doesn't seem like it to me.

buzzkillington 7y ago
First they came for the api users but I said nothing because I wasn't an api user. Then they came for the text based browsers users but I said nothing because I wasn't a text based browser user. Then they came for the small browsers but I said nothing because I didn't use a small browser. When they came for me there was no one left to speak. Googles behavior is clearly anti-competitive. At this point it is in everyone's interests for google to be broken up into multiple companies. One might even figure out a way to be good at search again.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  But the "they" in this story is hostile third-parties trying to steal users' Google password.
deogeo 7y ago
I didn't mean this as a slippery slope example (though that certainly applies), but as an example of the same thing, just to a greater degree. If we're not okay with that, then why is this okay? It's the same kind of imposition, telling users what they may use.

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago

Even "hackers" are willing to give away control of their devices for so called security so no wonder things like that are happening and are the norm. Most of the people argue here that Apple selling totally locked devices that you can't open with even 100 security alerts and total wipeout is totally good because of security. And mind you this is hacker news where people ought to be curious, tinker and improve. Of course ironic changes come from Google in the name of security who doesn't care about my data security or privacy and keeps following me around the internet like a pervert. I guess you can be a peeping Tom in real life too if you claim to keep your collected photos secure from other perverts and only sell the ones with blurred out faces. What's the harm if you can't see the face?