Hacker News Reader

It's really bothering when the account just also happens to be your core email service so suddenly you have no way of recovering other accounts.

Moving off Gmail is likely impossible for most non-technical folks.

There are plenty email providers out there. Free and paid. It should not be a problem for anyone to switch. Moving off of Gmail doesn't mean to self host. It is a bit of work to tell anyone about your new address, but that's it.

Changing upwards of 200 logins to use a new email address may be troublesome. Do you keep a list?

When I switched away from Gmail, I used my password manager to track the logins I needed to change. Then, just monitored the Gmail inbox for anything I missed.

First, I saved every login on Bitwarden and then used that to visit every website and changed login email info there and re-saved on Bitwarden.

The effort is only one time or one day at max. And the rewards are worth the time.

There's another catch, many services use the email address as an immutable identifier that cannot be changed. For some that doesn't matter, but at the very least it is a lot of time/effort.

A lot of those can be solved by contacting the support of that service. Services that don't allow you to change emails are usually on the smaller side and so you might actually get a response.

Yes, my password manager

Unlike sibling commenters, I used to not use a password manager. (But do now!)

I just keep the old GMail for now, and whenever I receive a valid email there, I visit the sender website to update it.

This depends on you remembering your "low-volume important accounts" like government websites you visit once a year, but otherwise, I would not cry if my imgur account got lost or something eventually.

Would be nice for companies to maintain a standard account management API which password managers could call. Imagine buttons on your password manager: "Set All Emails..." and "Randomize All Passwords..." I didn't find any such standard after a quick search.

Edit: Looks like LastPass does it with a screen scraper https://support.logmeininc.com/lastpass/help/how-do-i-update...

What about the hundreds of other accounts that use your gmail as either the 2FA target or password reset?

For a non-technical user (like my mom), this is a herculean task.

If you need a password reset do it and use the reminder to change the email. If your mom signed up for hundreds of accounts she should be saavy enough to handle the account update.

There's no need to delete the old gmail account, just use the new account for anything new, and change the mail address to the new one for the few frequent and useful accounts.

Over time, the old gmail account will lose its importance, and there'll be no real risk if Google decides to ban it.

True, they do have a "grip on people". I use gmail for my private email and I use Google Photos and Google disk for storage through a paid family account. I am considering a move to an European email and storage provider to avoid the almost moralistic TOS many US providers have to avoid liability issues, I just haven't decided which I should go for. It will come with a loss of convenience and that irritates me. The way Google have gotten me hooked to their walled garden.

Another benefit you get from using gmail is that it's do much simpler to give someone your email address. You just need to get the part before the @ correct, they won't misspell the Gmail.com. I moved much of my email to Fastmail with my own domain. However, when I rented a car earlier this week I gave them my Gmail address because it's just so much less painful especially since the clerk and I could barely understand each other with nearby noise and masks and plexi glass between us. Happens all the time.

There is nothing in the slightest bit technical about opening an email account with protonmail, or fastmail or any number of other much less invasive email services. A protonmail et al account could even be called easier to open since Google lately asks for quite a bit in exchange for the "privilege" of having one of their email addresses. Gmail also constantly screws around with security blocks for blah blah reason that require backup email or phone verification gymnastics if you do any number of tiny things "wrong", like say, trying to log in from a new country.

I wonder whether we will see something similar to public utilities in the web.

Companies like Google would be required to provide a basic service to basically everyone and are required to go through a court before suspending accounts (or maybe just some core features).

On one hand it would enshrine their position in the market, on the other hand it would remove some of their ability to make arbitrary decisions with no recourse and no information why it hapended.

That's an interesting idea and it correlates with the idea of "the right to access the internet". Maybe we will see this happen through similar standards we have for bank accounts and money transfers, or even electricity as we have in many countries. I think it at least some of the infrastructural services like storage and email should be regulated in one way or the other

No need to tie it to any specific company, tie it to user count instead. With increased reach comes increased responsibilities to society.

The telecommunications name for this is a "common carrier". The flip side is that they are only liable for damage they do and are held not liable for the things sent through their system.

Why would they need to go to court to shut you off?

At least in the UK utilities such as electric or gas only need to go to court to get a warrant to access your property to physically disconnect you - I do not believe the court process is about the disconnection itself, but rather the physical access to your home to physically cut you off.

For a digital service they'd just cut you off without needing a warrant to access your home.

But anyway, public utilities need to be paid for - I can't imagine people being too pleased to suddenly need to start paying for things like email or search (Google or otherwise).

Maybe a court isn't needed, but strict effective regulation is in my opinion.

That would probably involve payment but not prevent others from entering the market.

Where I am located there is one designated electricity provider who must service everyone (and is usually more expensive). People are free to switch if they want.

I feel like the free market is not doing particularly well in basic digital services like file storage or communication. While there is some competition on price, all providers reserve themselves the right to cut you off for no reason at all without due process. Their rules are intransparent and are inforced by dependent employees.

It's slightly more, but this is why I have stuck with Dropbox. Their only business is storage and it means they are less likely to do things like this. They have't been in the news, that I have seen, about actions like this.

Google is a consumer hostile company at this point. Unless you have a friend with pull there, or make it a big enough news issue, the little things are treated with automated hostility.

Google isn't alone here, it's the result of very large companies being under regulated on the consumer side.

Dropbox has the exact same policies and procedures, they just don't have the same technical abilities that Google has. Quoting from their AUP:

"...you must not even try to do any of the following ...: ...

- publish, share, or store materials that constitute child sexually exploitative material (including material which may not be illegal child sexual abuse material but which nonetheless sexually exploits or promotes the sexual exploitation of minors), unlawful pornography, or are otherwise indecent;

- publish, share, or store content that contains or promotes extreme acts of violence or terrorist activity, including terror propaganda;

- advocate bigotry or hatred against any person or group of people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or impairment;

...

We reserve the right to take appropriate action in response to violations of this policy, which could include removing or disabling access to content, suspending a user’s access to the Services, or terminating an account."

Quoting from their privacy FAQ:

"Examples of Dropbox processing your data in furtherance of its legitimate interests in operating our Services and business include:

...

- Investigating and preventing security issues and abuse of the Dropbox Services or Dropbox users."

It's not the rules, those are common, it's the lack of human after. When the automation goes wrong, how much effort is it to get a human and to fix the issue. Or how many other services are taken down too. Google as an identity provider means that other third parties/devices are down in the mean time.

The point is really, that these companies are so large that they should be much more regulated and treated like any utility. That means it is a legal proceeding when they want to drop customers. This many mean that people, gulp, pay for services, but they have chosen to intertwine themselves into too many places in the consumer landscape.

I wonder how much it used to suck when the power company wasn’t as regulated and would do stuff like “we detected illegal activity so we shut off your power.”

I’d like some balance because I don’t want Google and Dropbox to suck as much as my power and phone company. But do want some regulation around lack of due process and “bundling” where a YouTube comment can result in my GCP account shut down.

I disagree. Google has always been a consumer hostile company. The only "at this point" thing is: they have become worse at hiding it.

The only thing that changed was that there's now a notification sent to the user if the sharing of a file is restricted. Why is that deeply disturbing news? Seems like a strict improvement in usability.

What is disturbing is the reason they give for why they will do it. One thing is if the drive is specifically used for cyber attacks and other malicious operations over the internet, but they refer to these rules; https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 and they are extensive to say the least. On top of that this is yet another move from Google to declare their rights to control your content and access to it if you use their service.

sorry, maybe I misread your question. Did you mean to say that they already did this without any notice to users, and the only change now is that they will start to send notifications when they do?

Yes, that is exactly what the blog post is saying. It has never been the case that you could use Drive to just share files in an unlimited manner. They used to notify about this in the Drive user interface. Now they will also send an email notification in addition to that.

Yes, this is not new. People have abused Drive to host illegal content and spam for years. They have been silently banned and removed. The fact that you rarely hear about it shows that they actually have a fairly low false-positive rate.

The only change now is that the file gets unshared, you get a notification, and can try to dispute the claim. This is a strict improvement.