101–110 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would break some common authentication options in ytdl: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#authentication-option...
It is not the whole world attacking ytdl - but Google, definitely. Evil by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once upon a time Google would've been applauded for forcing people to improve their security. Like when they made https a ranking factor for sites and overnight forced all the laggards to move off http. Now, people just scream "monopoly" at everything google does, good or bad and boy is it getting tedious.
Once upon a time Google had "don't be evil" in their corporate mission and people trusted them to act in good faith. Good old times.
>And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
>Last updated September 25, 2020
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security for whom? Locking the user out of the software they want to use is not improving security for them .
That's only true if you assume the user is perfectly capable of evaluating the trustworthiness and quality of the software they want to use. It's understandable that that's not the assumption Google designs their security under. Yes, that sometimes somewhat sucks for us power users.
This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with banning tools like youtube-dl, wget and others; from the post: > The browser must identify itself clearly in the User-Agent. The browser must not try to impersonate another browser like Chrome or Firefox. > The browser must not provide automation features. This includes scripts that automate keystrokes or clicks, especially to perform automatic sign-ins.…
This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with banning tools like youtube-dl, wget and others; from the post: > The browser must identify itself clearly in the User-Agent. The browser must not try to impersonate another browser like Chrome or Firefox. > The browser must not provide automation features. This includes scripts that automate keystrokes or clicks, especially to perform automatic sign-ins.…
> ...Google Account sign-ins from all embedded frameworks will be blocked starting on January 4, 2021
It says nothing about non-login related actions.
Anti-trust action can't come fast enough.
Once upon a time Google would've been applauded for forcing people to improve their security. Like when they made https a ranking factor for sites and overnight forced all the laggards to move off http. Now, people just scream "monopoly" at everything google does, good or bad and boy is it getting tedious.
Of course, if you just hand-wave away such criticism as being "tedious", I don't expect you to care, but other people do.
Ok, so no password managers that auto-fill your password (like the one built-in to Chrome)? This guidance is not well-thought-out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has everything to do with security: securing Google's control . Google wants to take over the Internet. We should not let it use these "less secure" excuses to sway the public opinion.
Google’s control...over the security of Google accounts? If you are worried enough about Google’s dominance over the Internet to be upset by this particular practice, it is unlikely you have (or should maintain) a Google account. I’m not a “Google stan” by any means, but to say that they want to take over the Internet is just not true.
Can you imagine if Fox announced that only approved televisions could show their content?
This is a campaign against Lynx! > The browser must have JavaScript enabled. > You must confirm that your browser does not contain any of the following: > * Text-based browsers Once upon a time the internet was TCP with things like FTP, Email, Newsgroups, IRC and yes also HTTP (aka WWW). Now, the internet seems to be Google, Apple, Facebook aaand SEO. Hey, wait! There is a small shiny place!! Hackernews! :)