HN

Comments (74)

• Menu

  bgc
  This is not a Google-wide thing… this is from Google’s Context-Aware Access product, which is configurable in Google Workspace environments. OP should direct their ire at their corporate IT or infosec team.
• Menu

  lokar
  Is it not:https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/create...The Org admin can put all sorts of restrictions on who can do what based on the client device setup.
• sdrawkcabsti
  They wont stop it. They will just slow down a bit if people get ruffled. That's how alphabet has handled everything else. They learned that if they can make changes slowly enough, they can do whatever the hell they want to.As we all know we can even pay 10x more for items and get next to no raise in our wages, but because it was done slowly in an "official" and "professional" manner, most folks didn't even complain, they just screamed into the giant pillow we call "the internet".Corporations of the 2020s love the internet's digital pillow and its magical crowd-quieting capabilities. If only the ancient roman empire had invented the internet they would be ruling the entire planet by now and we could watch gladiators on youtube :P provided we don't stand out too much (then we would be said gladiators)
• Menu

  chmod775
  It appears website developers desperately want to return to a world where browsers actively pretend to be another browser*.Want to check for DBSC? Enjoy not knowing whether the browser vendor decided to just roll a simple software implementation.Nothing good comes from browser detection over feature detection anyways. It's time to do away with user-agents and other overt identifying markers, and if we're still not in a better place, aggressively start stubbing features.* to some degree they still are. Firefox still ships with an user-agent override list for certain websites that have outdated user-agent sniffing for feature detection (and other fixes in about:compat).
• j45
  Reading the news of EU countries leaving American cloud providers for local cloud solutions including mobile office, it's surprising to see Google doing this.It will only accelerate moves towards location of data, self-hosting, etc. The technologies to make this possible are much easier than they ever have been.
• Menu

  jeroenhd
  It states something about "your organisation's security requirements", do they document what requirements cause this rejection page? Some kind if changed default perhaps?
• wwizo
  At least you got a heads-up. Few months back GCP "Agent Studio - Build" failed compiling the code in sandbox with a vague error message. Spent weeks troubleshooting, spoke to google engineers and reps, sending code, step by steps, screenshots. No one had a clue, until I switched from Firefox to Chrome out of desperation and it worked without a hitch.
• Menu

  coldfloor
  Not defending it, but given that they use the word "secure" three times in two sentences, I'm wondering if it's shown to browsers that don't support DBSC. Google has been really pushing/overselling this as a magical solution to cookie theft.
• Menu

  ferfumarma
  Seems like a monopolistic move.
• Menu

  saagarjha
  I know Google finally kicked all their employees off alternate browsers but doing it for external customers is definitely a choice
• insanitybit
  Sounds like you have a device policy configured and you should talk to your internal IT/Security team?
• eikenberry
  Does Chromium would still work?
• Menu

  add-sub-mul-div
  I use Google as a secondary search and as of roughly last week it gives me a captcha every time I try to do a search. That had never been the case before.
• kjkjadksj
  Smells anticompetitive to me
• lelanthran
  [flagged]
• nekusar
  Oh look, a monopolist is making settings "more secure" by enshrining monopoly more.And good fucking luck getting the FTC to follow monopoly law.
• functionmouse
  Do it then