3 ms·

"A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805 https://news.ycombinator.com/i

"A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805 This was more than two years ago. Despite the title, many parents are victims to this. To this very day, Google continues to defame them and deny access to their accounts. Long after the police cleared these victims' names. Long after the NYT confronted Google about this. So is this what "normies" should be subject to? A digital totalitarian hellscape in which a trillion dollar advertising giant rummages through people's digital lives, randomly takes away their entire digital identity every time their flawed cyber-oracle tells them to, and uses their vast corporate resources to harass and defame? That's not a world I want to live in. I don't want anyone to be subject to that kind of tyranny. It's not about any "religious belief," but rather basic human decency.

vel0city 2y ago
You don't need to involve Google or Microsoft or Apple to use passkeys. Your whole argument is a misunderstanding of how they work.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  Are you responding to the right comment? My argument has nothing to do with how passkeys work. I was responding to this: > Yeah that's great, I don't subscribe to that particular religion but respect your beliefs. I think most people are best served having their primary online identity be a Google account, for multiple reasons. I'm aware that a vocal contingent of technologists on HN find that take appalling, but I assure you, my take is a normie take, and also the modal take among security people.
tptacek 2y ago
Do you have an argument that would be persuasive for someone who does not find Richard Stallman rhetoric compelling? It's OK if you don't, but then there isn't much for us to talk about.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  It's compelling to everyone who doesn't randomly want to lose access to all of their online accounts. Everyone who doesn't want the police turned on them when they haven't done anything wrong. Everyone who doesn't want to be wrongly labeled a criminal for the whole world to see. That's basically everyone. If you want these things to happen to you, just like they did to the parents in the NYT article, I guess you'll be the sole exception. But why? Also, Richard Stallman? Where did that come from? This has nothing to do with free software at all. I'm also capable of drawing my own conclusions without someone else whispering in my ear, if that's what you're suggesting.
  - kbelder 2y ago
    He's attempting to discredit you because your belief is strongly held. His comments about 'religious' beliefs are similar... trying to suggest you shouldn't be listened to because you're driven by irrationality. It's not honest discussion.

vel0city 2y ago

You don't need to involve Google or Microsoft or Apple to use passkeys. Your whole argument is a misunderstanding of how they work.

soraminazuki 2y ago
Are you responding to the right comment? My argument has nothing to do with how passkeys work. I was responding to this: > Yeah that's great, I don't subscribe to that particular religion but respect your beliefs. I think most people are best served having their primary online identity be a Google account, for multiple reasons. I'm aware that a vocal contingent of technologists on HN find that take appalling, but I assure you, my take is a normie take, and also the modal take among security people.

tptacek 2y ago

Do you have an argument that would be persuasive for someone who does not find Richard Stallman rhetoric compelling? It's OK if you don't, but then there isn't much for us to talk about.

soraminazuki 2y ago
It's compelling to everyone who doesn't randomly want to lose access to all of their online accounts. Everyone who doesn't want the police turned on them when they haven't done anything wrong. Everyone who doesn't want to be wrongly labeled a criminal for the whole world to see. That's basically everyone. If you want these things to happen to you, just like they did to the parents in the NYT article, I guess you'll be the sole exception. But why? Also, Richard Stallman? Where did that come from? This has nothing to do with free software at all. I'm also capable of drawing my own conclusions without someone else whispering in my ear, if that's what you're suggesting.
- kbelder 2y ago
  He's attempting to discredit you because your belief is strongly held. His comments about 'religious' beliefs are similar... trying to suggest you shouldn't be listened to because you're driven by irrationality. It's not honest discussion.