4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoFirst 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 agoBut the "they" in this story is hostile third-parties trying to steal users' Google password.
- deogeo 7y agoI 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.