3 ms·
> For the best security, [...] That would be really good security! Actually, that would be very bad for security, because users would work around it. (Well, it
by a1369209993 6y ago
> For the best security, [...] That would be really good security!
Actually, that would be very bad for security, because users would work around it. (Well, it might be really, really, good for security if it got people to stop using Google, but I doubt that's what you meant.) As the saying goes:
> Security at the expense of usability comes at the expense of security.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI was being factitious, but seriously, how would you get around an in-person interview requirement? Let's assume that Google isn't doing anything stupid—you can't just stay logged in forever, and whatever process the Google employee does on their end is reasonably protected and audited.
- a1369209993 6y ago> > Well, it might be really, really, good for security if it got people to stop using Google, [emphasis added]