I dislike it. I already have a unique, long, randomly generated password for every account. That's stored in a password manager with a unique, long passphrase. 2FA provides very little additional security in that scenario.
Worse, many services won't let me use a standard TOTP authenticator. Some insist on SMS. Worse, some insist on their own app.
For my own use, I don't care much, but I agree in theory. My 128gb Pixel 4A has 32gb free and I do not actively manage space on it. Android's handling of SD cards is kind of terrible, making them mostly useful for media files. If I did much photography or videography with my phone, I'd want this more.
I'm sad PGP didn't become a popular way to log into websites. A challenge-response protocol could have even been built into web browsers. Big tech is reinventing that idea as Passkey, but with a very big tech flavor.
Looking at the court's opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it's unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that's a question for people who know more about law than I do.
Very likely, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't achieve 80% of that on the web. Targeted surveillance, as they've been caught doing to critics before would not work as well.
This is correct, but the law doesn't do that. It mentions TikTok in the title, but the text describes what is banned in terms of user count and control by a foreign adversary. It would apply to a future product made by a Russian company, for example.
Most of them[1] know a whole lot more about constitutional law than the average lemming.
When things are working correctly, the Supreme Court's role is usually not very concerned with the facts of the case; its role is to resolve questions of law. Congress considered the facts including some classified briefings, decided that American app stores should be forbidden from distributing TikTok to American users, and made a law. The court was asked whether Congress has the authority to make laws like that, and the court decided that it does.
So can installing a faulty third-party cooling fan, but in the USA, the law requires the warranty provider to prove the fault was caused by improper maintenance or defects in third-party components.
In most situations, even that is giving too much power to the manufacturer. It's fair for them to flash the original software as part of any diagnostic or service process, but not fair to refuse to repair or replace a product that actually has a hardware defect just because the owner put different software on it.
Agreed. Microsoft proposed something along those lines under the name "Palladium" a couple decades ago and was widely criticized, even in the mainstream press. Apple and Google doing the same thing to our phones barely got a whimper.
Locked in the technical sense of being able to verify the operating system isn't a bad thing. The problem is when the device owner can't add signing keys of their choice.
I did not say that they're not important. I said that they're hosted services, which traditionally don't have the same expectation of user control as computers that users own.
Zak @ Zak @lemmy.world Posts 10Comments 1,267Joined 2 yr. ago
I dislike it. I already have a unique, long, randomly generated password for every account. That's stored in a password manager with a unique, long passphrase. 2FA provides very little additional security in that scenario.
Worse, many services won't let me use a standard TOTP authenticator. Some insist on SMS. Worse, some insist on their own app.