On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:06 PM Michael Rathbun via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:51:24 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > >Typically, the phone number use in cases like this is part of trying to > >prevent bulk operations. > > All I can personally say is that, when I recently tried to log in to > Google to > retrieve some articles I had saved in Google News, I had to dig through the > old hardware pile to find a Galaxy Tab E that I had used years before, to > which Google had sent an unlock code. There was no alternative channel for > the unlock code to be retrieved. My only option was to dig through boxes > to > find the Tab E, charge it up to the point where it could attach to local > WiFi, > and see that, sure enough, there was a pop-up directing me to use this code > (now expired, due to all the rummaging) to log into my Google account. > That is decidedly odd and a very poor choice. You can manage which devices are known to your account at https://myaccount.google.com/device-activity signing out from a device on that page will remove it from the list of prompt devices for 2FA at https://myaccount.google.com/two-step-verification/prompt Feh. And again I say: FEH! > > "Don't be evil", indeed. Missed that one by a mile. > The banality of evil or something, but trying to protect your personal information is generally considered a good idea and enforced legally around the world. What is the benefit, the evil benefit, to Google of a poor choice of user verification? Evil : letting people other than you access your data Also Evil : trying too hard to make sure it's you accessing your data, or having bugs in the process Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
