3 ms·
Ugh wtf so I need a Google account on Android? That's not going to happen. For an org that pretends to care about privacy you'd imagine there'd be a way to avo
by wolvoleo 2mo ago
Ugh wtf so I need a Google account on Android? That's not going to happen.
For an org that pretends to care about privacy you'd imagine there'd be a way to avoid, you know, the biggest privacy invader on the planet.
Just allow monero payments or something. Alongside Google play for the sheep that want to use that.
- Cider9986 2mo agoHopefully they eventually make a way to pay without it.
- genrader 2mo agoYou wouldn't believe the spam if they did that
- Cider9986 2mo agoWhy? Just raise the prices if they get more spam on non-google payments. I've literally registered a Signal account on one of the free SMS sites floating around. Why would spammers choose the payment route over phone numbers? They would just choose the one that's cheaper.
- thin_carapace 2mo agogoogles obligation to hand out all account linked info notwithstanding, one may still create google accounts without associating a phone number, by doing so on old android versions. signal does however explicitly force credit card info here, thus providing direct individual traceability ..
- wolvoleo 2mo agoPlus they are mandating you give your details to Google. So much for privacy
- HWR_14 2mo agoAre you being hyperbolic, or do you really consider Google the worst with regards to privacy.
- wolvoleo 2mo agoThe most ubiquitous, absolutely. Their data collection is unparalleled. They're on almost every website, app, they have fingers into payment and browsers and mobile OSes. In terms of what they do with big data there's more evil parties like Palantir but data abuse starts with collecting it, and I would object to it even if Google promised to only use it for good. For me my privacy is already violated when my data is collected, not just when it's abused. And I do consider Google's use of that data abusive, just not in the worst ways.
- shim__ 2mo agoGoogle is a bad as a phone number since it also has strong ties to your real identity
- Aldipower 2mo agoYes. Google is even worse imho.
- goodpoint 2mo agoGoogle is objectively the worst
- eks391 2mo agoThe idea that Google isn't the worst in respects to privacy is not an idea I've seen. Is there a company you propose as being worse? I think Meta is the next contender but they don't have nearly the same influence, so its still Google. Not for a lack of trying though. Mark would love to have the data and infrastructure dependence that Google holds over the internet.
- drnick1 2mo ago> Just allow monero payments or something. This is the right solution. A one-time payment in crypto, say $5, ought to be enough to prevent spam. That being said, Signal has demonstrated (when presented a warrant) that they do not store phone numbers. If I remember correctly all they stored was an account ID and a UNIX timestamp such as the last login.
- shim__ 2mo ago> If I remember correctly all they stored was an account ID and a UNIX timestamp such as the last login. How do they perform address book matching without an phone number? It just being accessible by SGX does not really count as not storing it. Problem with phone numbers is they are to short to store as a hash, since you can brute force the sha256 of an phone number in a trivial amount of time on a single consumer device
- dguest 2mo agoWouldn't a payment of about $0.05 do the trick? My understanding of most kinds of spam is that it relies on being able to deploy hundreds of thousands of bot accounts just to get a few hits.
- buckle8017 2mo agoThis is for registering an account that can then send many many messages.
- deltoidmaximus 2mo agoCan you actually make a Google account without a phone number these days?