> Arguably, Unix pathnames are more discoverable than arbitrary Docs links. But the idea is the same, isn't it? The discoverability is a pretty key difference.

> Arguably, Unix pathnames are more discoverable than arbitrary Docs links. But the idea is the same, isn't it? The discoverability is a pretty key difference. If google had a feature that allowed you to enumerate all edit links in their system, then those links would effectively br world writeable. > I would say that Google Workspaces' implementation of "Anyone with the Link" authorization was never intended to depend on secrecy (or obscurity or what have-you). If that was true, the link would just use a document ID, the use of a cryptographic hash does imply some intention that these files won't simply be world writeable and that access is intended to be controlled by sharing of the link. In the specific case, the people using the feature failed to do either. They didn't treat the file as world writeable and they didn't treat the link like a secret. If they had done either, that would have helped.