Google is trialling what is essentially one-factor-two-factor. That is, you use the approved-on-your-phone component but not the password component.
The sad, expensive, tale of Google+.
I was going through my “Google fangirl” phase right when G+ came out. I was an early adopter on the site, and… yeah. Yeah that all crashed and burned, didn’t it? G+ (as well as the canning of Wave) were the two big incidents that made me stop thinking of Google as a Cool Tech Innovator and start thinking of them as Microsoft 2.0.
So companies can now follow you around the internet with their ads even easier thanks to Google’s Customer Match service. Awesome.
For the record, this is why I don’t give companies my Google account email address when they ask me for addresses; I have a custom domain with a catch-all email (i.e. everything sent to literally any @domain.name address goes into the same mailbox) and then use a new address for each website I sign up to (e.g. firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and so on). That all gets forwarded into my GMail account, but the addresses aren’t actually associated with that account.
For bonus points, it also lets me know who leaks my passwords and who sells me address to spammers. Awesome.
It’s not foolproof privacy–data correlation would be still possible if anyone knew which domain(s) I use for this–but it knocks out some of the low-hanging fruit like Match.
Oh, and incidentally? The title is because Match would be illegal in most major non-US jurisdictions; countries with sane privacy laws don’t allow the non-consensual sharing of PII (which includes email addresses) with third parties. Just, yanno. So you’re aware.
The guy who ended up buying google.com from google.com for the low, low price of $12.
For the record, it was a bug, he reported it, Google offered him a bug bounty reward, he donated it to a charity, Google doubled the money. Everyone was happy and no-one got hurt. Also for the record, this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened (Microsoft once famously lost one of its Hotmail domains, for example). The internet. Go figure.
Google commissioned a new font for its ereader app, and that font is really, really nice.
Shitty typography in ereaders is my pet hate, and it’s the main reason I a) don’t use Kindle, and b) do use calbre to reformat most of my ebook downloads. It’s not like I’m asking much. Just, yanno:
- fonts that don’t suck
- variable, or at least decently generous, line heights1
- no justified fucking text2
Basically, stop formatting ebooks like they’re books and start formatting them like they’re webpapges. Which they are literally are (ereaders use an HTML variant for markup).
- This one bugs me a lot. Super-compressed line heights in printed books are there to save paper and reduce the costs of printing. You’ll note this is not a problem that exists for ebooks, and yet you wouldn’t know it from glancing at the type alone. Guh.↩
- Seriously. What are we all? 17 year old girls forming cliques around blog design choices? Because that’s literally the last time I had this argument. For the record, I was vehemently for justified text at the time and I was wrong. Super, super wrong.↩
Oh hell there’s no possible way this could go wrong, I’m sure…
You’d really think a motto like “don’t be evil” would be pretty straightforward, wouldn’t you?
Well. You’d be wrong:
The famous Google mantra of ‘Don’t be evil’ is not entirely what it seems.
Or so sayeth Google’s Eric Schmidt.
Basically, while the motto is well-ingrained in the company’s engineers, the interpretation of “evil” basically boils down to “bad for Google”.
I used to be a massive Google fangirl. Nowadays, while I still think they produce a good suite of products, I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the price–in privacy and ownership, mostly–they’re extracting for it.