Comment by brunoTbear | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brunoTbear | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you may be giving people more credit than they deserve, but I'm willing to accept that they're making that argument. Even if that's their argument, that their personal habits around password use and being attentive to not being phished are so good they don't need Google's help defending themselves, so bully for everyone who does, I'm not convinced it's a good one.

There are a few things needed for that to be a good argument 1) Their security really is so good (I'd bet it isn't. I saw a tenured security professor/former State Department cyber expert get phished on the first go by an undergrad.) 2) Google isn't improving their security posture on top of that (I'd be shocked if Google isn't improving theirs, and I'm certain having JS required to sign into gmail closes a major hole in observability of automation) 3) There are real harms from the JS being there for their security/privacy posture (as I've said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced Google is allowed by their own privacy policy from doing anything untoward here)

As to your point about computer literacy and existence, I think the sad truth is that computer engagement is required, but literacy is optional. When that's the case, large companies are in the position of having to defend even the least computer literate against the most vicious of attackers.

> I think the sad truth is that computer engagement is required, but literacy is optional.

You're right on, but I wouldn't call it sad.

The population is expected to operate vehicles without putting others in danger, not credentialize in how cars work. There are endless amounts of things we could demand people spend their precious time deeply understanding. We just like to demand tech-savviness because it's self-aggrandizing.

Like everything else, the solution is to help people on their own behalf.

At an online casino I once worked at, we ended up generating random passwords for our users. We had to, because otherwise attackers would lookup usernames in the large password dumps online and log in as our users. No amount of warnings on our /register page stopped password reuse. So we decided we could do better than that, and that "well, we warned you" was not an appropriate response.

If you look around at everyday objects, everything is designed to protect the user. But for some reason in computing we're still in the dark ages of snickering and rolling our eyes at users for making mistakes.

> The population is expected to operate vehicles without putting others in danger, not credentialize in how cars work.

Exactly! We require "car literacy" in drivers before we allow them to use them. Pretty much every advanced economy has mandatory driver licensing.

A driver can trivially press a few levers and slam themselves into a barrier at 100mph. But they don't do that, because they know, through experience and education, that it's a terrible idea.

That's the exact opposite of the approach that would have cars restrict their own usage into a narrow set of patterns and refuse to function otherwise.

WRT the last half of your comment: I think that's reasonable. Generating random passwords for users is a fair approach.

Account security exists on a spectrum. I don't think anyone (reasonable) is arguing against that, we're talking about mutable state here, actual _actions_.

What I'm railing against, is this idea that every webpage on the internet needs to be behind a CAPTCHA that does a bunch of invasive data collection including probably asking the user to perform a Mechanical Turk task in order to _access a website_ without even logging in.

It happens all the time. A website doesn't like my IP block -> forced through a bunch of nonsense. The site operator probably isn't even aware because they're using an upstream service which does it for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com