5 ms·

"whether they like it or not" is the story. The transition from elective to non-consensual "for your own good security" no longer means more or less "security"

"whether they like it or not" is the story. The transition from elective to non-consensual "for your own good security" no longer means more or less "security", it is a qualitative, fundamental change in what "security" _is_ and the relation you have to a "service". It ceases to be a service. The power relation has changed. This is no longer about security, as you and I (regular folk) would understand it. Call it other things please; data-mining, enforced tracking, enclosure, domestication, bullying - but don't dignify the narrative by continuing to talk about "security" or "authentication". Many people miss this subtle sleight, the switch where the bodyguard becomes the kidnapper, or the walls to keep baddies out become the cage to keep you in.

howinteresting 5y ago
This is ridiculous. Are password complexity requirements also "the switch where the bodyguard becomes the kidnapper"?
- prirun 5y ago
  I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I've had a gmail account for 13 years or so, and year or two ago, they started hounding me to give them my phone number. I never did and eventually they quit bugging me about it. I don't think Google has any particular interest in our security. Why should they if we're not paying them? As a cororation, it doesn't make any difference. But what they do want is more information about us, so they can target better and charge more for ads. I'm sure if they have all that mail content, Google Drive content, Google Docs, Sheets, presentations, etc., having a phone number too is somehow to their financial advantage for their ad business, and that's the reason they want it. Same as the politicians pushing no encryption for the safety of kids. It's only slightly because they also want to be able to intercept all our communications. Yeah, sure it is.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    The 2fa here relies on push notifications, not on phone numbers by my understanding. > I don't think Google has any particular interest in our security. Why should they if we're not paying them? As a cororation, it doesn't make any difference. But so many of Google's actions do show that it cares about security, from the high-security mode for journalists and other at-risk populations to this very post, so perhaps your premises are wrong?

howinteresting 5y ago

This is ridiculous. Are password complexity requirements also "the switch where the bodyguard becomes the kidnapper"?

prirun 5y ago
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I've had a gmail account for 13 years or so, and year or two ago, they started hounding me to give them my phone number. I never did and eventually they quit bugging me about it. I don't think Google has any particular interest in our security. Why should they if we're not paying them? As a cororation, it doesn't make any difference. But what they do want is more information about us, so they can target better and charge more for ads. I'm sure if they have all that mail content, Google Drive content, Google Docs, Sheets, presentations, etc., having a phone number too is somehow to their financial advantage for their ad business, and that's the reason they want it. Same as the politicians pushing no encryption for the safety of kids. It's only slightly because they also want to be able to intercept all our communications. Yeah, sure it is.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  The 2fa here relies on push notifications, not on phone numbers by my understanding. > I don't think Google has any particular interest in our security. Why should they if we're not paying them? As a cororation, it doesn't make any difference. But so many of Google's actions do show that it cares about security, from the high-security mode for journalists and other at-risk populations to this very post, so perhaps your premises are wrong?