On my return everything went smoothly through my laptop. Scary though.
My conclusion - have two physical phones + laptop all synced, plus hardcopy of important pswds etc.
Data is easier to protect by offline and online back-ups, but your online identity is hard.
And then say, Meta decides to ask for login verification on your other device, and you lose that account because you always logged to it through a browswer in private mode, so no device actually has an active session. Happened to my wife the other day.
IT "Security" is reaching new heights of being bullshit. You can't win, and asking people to buy multiple devices and keep them continuously in sync is a bit much, and not even a guarantee of safety anyway, as next week Google or Amazon will hit you with some next weird trap to keep you "sekhure".
You likely don't need to buy multiple devices. I log in from random countries/VPNs all the time and never have issues, but I do have 2fa enabled. If your account only has a password and there was a suspicious sign in attempt, it's reasonable for them to ask for additional verification somehow because you could be a victim of a credential stuffing attack. It's hard for companies to win here. Either people complain about their accounts getting randomly locked because they were on vacation in Romania and tried signing in on a new device, or the companies get grilled by the media for "failing to proactively protect their users' data" or whatever.
Maybe the companies can't win, but they also have themselves to blame. They shouldn't have convinced people to entrust their only copies of data with them. Your vacation photos should not depend on someone's cloud platform. Half of your entire offline life shouldn't depend on Google not randomly locking you out of GMail. But here we are, and I'll keep calling those "security updates" bullshit because they don't care about long tail, and they don't care about hazards they create for most of their users.
Unless you explicitly logged out, they likely to see the opposite picture, i.e. numerous "valid" sessions (as opposed to active) that haven't been used for varying lengths of time because you logged in, but from their perspective, you never logged out. You just cleared your cookies which means the session is still "valid", even if it's inaccessible to you because the session cookies have been cleared from your device.
I don't know if they take any of this into account but as you've pointed out, assuming that the rightful owner of the account must have access to a different session is a huge assumption to make.
I abandoned my facebook account when they asked for my driver's license scan, a few weeks later suddenly they didn't need it after all. My BIL recently wanted me to check sout omething he had setup on facebook and I found I could "login" by clicking one of the "what are people doing" spam emails they send. I've never used it on this PC before and have no idea what the password even is anymore. Super secure.
This was in 2008, so the software ecosystem lock-in strategy was already well-established back then.
You could always edit artwork in iTunes. Indeed, you could import albums from your own CDs and not even use the iTunes Music Store at all.
And keep in mind that being a domain name registrar is a low margin business (typically they're only grossing a few bucks per domain per year, before accounting for any other expenses like staffing and systems), so you're not gonna get great support.
I believe they are advocating for minimizing risk by not deeply integrating with capricious cloud providers.
(My Google account is dead even though I have the username, password and recovery email which forwards to me since I don't have the phone number)
However the big problem is I am frequently banned from emailing gmail or office365. Never Apple for some reason. So I can read email but I can’t that well send it. But I don’t really care much, mostly people have to tell me out of band to check my email if they have sent me email. My email sessions are mostly a review of current spam practices and questionable emails from firms I have done business with.
For Google/Apple/etc., I'm either not paying them at all (in which case they have very little incentive to help me off someone goes wrong), or I am, but for a basket of services. The identity portion of those services is probably not what that company is focusing on providing, and any weirdness with any other service in that basket could cause me to lose my access to the identity bits, often without recourse.
Losing your entire online identity because you didn’t pay on time is an absolute show stopper for an enormous number of people.
Most people are not tech people. They do not know or car, or even care to know, about the details and importance of maintaining and protecting an online identity. They won’t remember to update payment details until things start failing. They won’t check their email frequently enough to notice before this happens. They will ignore text messages, either assuming they’re scams, spam, or unimportant.
People also have a mobile phone number with a plan they have to pay for. I don’t see why a domain should be any different, and it isn’t actually that different in my country.
Another 25% had their bank balance go below zero in the past year. And that number is worse than it sounds, because it doesn't include people who have selected to have transactions fail instead of put their balance below zero. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-repor...
The biggest impediment is probably that most people aren’t willing to pay (say) $10 per month for a domain and email hosting like they do for streaming services, because they’re used to email being free. So they remain at the mercy of the big providers.
But I can at least encourage the HN crowd here to move to independent services and to use their own domain.
(And to be fair to apple here - they didn’t do anything wrong here, strong end-to-end security inherently means allowing these states. Otherwise the cops could order apple to unlock it too, and apple wouldn’t have a moral ground to object if they’re regularly performing the task in other circumstances. Otherwise people could social-engineer apple support to unlock a stolen device, or their partners. To a certain mindset, google and apple not having any real support is a strength because there’s no way to social-engineer your way past the actual security. But people want both the idea of E2E security and the convenience of being able to remotely un-register a laptop from someone else's account...)
Anyway, that failure mode wouldn’t exist if they were logged in to their account, and e2e encryption makes that a very low-risk thing overall.
Apple can’t see where to it devices are anyway, without doing a song-and-dance to authorize the session on a pre-authed device. Airtags and iphones have a rolling hardware identifier for bluetooth and wifi based on a cryptographically strong pseudorandom sequence, and apple can't correlate the identifiers back to an actual device without a pre-authed device relaying the sequence from your account. Etc etc.
Apple have actually done the legwork to make sure they can't see anything (or be forced to reveal anything) if you don't want them to (by enabling E2E), and that actually does drive a lot of "user-unfriendly decisions". And sure, android people will say "that's awfully convenient", but, the end state is still a lot stronger than any other major offering regardless of why you think they're doing it.
Did you have 2fa enabled by any chance? I have 2fa via TOTP on my accounts and while they offer using a signed in phone as a verification option, using TOTP was always an option, and I was never locked out of my account.
>Despite having the original sim in the new phone.
That would only help if google had some way of tying the installed sim to your account. Given the privacy implications and the technical difficulties, I wouldn't be outraged at the fact it didn't take your sim into consideration.
[1] https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh...
Why do you need more than a single phone plus a hardcopy of your Google recovery codes (assuming you know your Google account password)?
Society was collectively sold this deal where if you entrust everything to a trillion-dollar company, you'll be treated well and this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Yet it appears to be happening, and the trillion-dollar company that has the resources to deal with this so far isn't being very helpful, and it's falling to the consumer to take insane amounts of proactive measures to not have their digital lives fucked up when the exact deal was that you wouldn't have to, but of course now the party line will be "well you were obviously stupid to believe the trillion-dollar company's trillion-dollar marketing, then."
And I'm annoyed as one of the people who did not buy into it.
Because, as I can tell from a similar experience to GP's, they also won't save you if the authentication infrastructure decides you're not who you say you are.
- I have my recovery codes
- I have access to my recovery email address
- I have access to a TOTP token
I would hope this is sufficient to persuade Google's authentication infrastructure to let me in.
My conclusion: Eliminate what little remaining usages of their services I have.
Doing that with iCloud and Google would be a colossal pain. This event has me thinking more seriously about self-hosting a few more things.
This. I never used the Apple's Cloud offerings to backup things - and I stopped using any Apple devices since the BatteryGate. I semi-degooglify my Android(s), and never use the "Google-*" (contacts, calendar, etc.). I block them with NoRoot Firewall and disable them, and use other apps for those services. I sync with my Oulook (2013) and my backup is with Carbonite. I do have to jump through a couple of hoops, but considering that I don't live under the threat of 'death' by Apple or Google to hold me hostage with my data/etc, the little effort is well worth it.
I try not to, but every year I log in and check and there is data stored in their cloud that I specifically tried not to have stored there.
Well, if you used Google 2FA, the Authy app exists, and allows you to securely store 2FA in the cloud (as long as you remember your Authy credentials).
If you don't, then yes, your physical phone essentially becomes a dongle and if you lose it, you're screwed. Perhaps they don't educate users enough about this, but that's the fact
2. Save those backup codes.
3. Be able to get those backup codes in some worst case scenario.
I have had to start from scratch before but never have been locked out.
The fact that we are stuck with a pair of global apathetic undemocratic identity providers is absurd. And one of the reasons why that "shattered dream of passkeys" is on the front page. At least that dream got shattered, it would be worse if it went through.
So if you don't tie all your contacts, sync and backup to your google account, you can have a phone that they won't lock you out of.
Storing them seems problematic, but it really isn't: They're just random-looking 8-digit numbers and nobody but you needs to know that they belong to your Google account.
Or, KISS. If you're happy with the idea that the SIM card controls the key to the castle, as it seems that you are, then: Put a backup code in a contact in your SIM card. (It is kind of a lost art these days, but SIM cards are still data storage devices here in 2024.)
[1]: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1187538?hl=en&co=...
Some people use iCloud for email, calendar and storage so for them I imagine losing access to Apple ID would be just as bad.
An Apple or Google account is far too important to people's lives to let them hide behind the "we're a private company and can do whatever we want" canard. They do need to have the right to ban spammers or people using YouTube or Drive to infringe copyrights but just randomly shutting off somebody's email or somebody's ability to make video calls should be against the law. The same would also apply to a text chat company like Slack or Discord banning somebody's work account for no reason. Certain tech companies have government-like levels of power over people's lives so they need to be restricted in how they can treat users like the government is restricted in how it can treat citizens.
But even the more permissive laws have many exceptions, like not applying to perishable goods, underwear, lipstick, etc. and it's heavily tilted for unused products or very light us that doesn't affect the value of the product when re-sold.
When the product doesn't work like in the case of this Apple situation, it's not even a question. As long as the hardware is not damaged and everything is return, "the law" completely sides with the consumer.
Likelihood should affect your behavior in the same way it affects whether it actually happens and it did.
"Fool me once..."
That's similar to the odds of dying in a non-Boeing plane ride. Even if the odds were one in a million, that's about the odds of being struck by lightning over a lifetime.
I'd think someone returning a phone over this was regretting the switch for other reasons. It's fine to keep using Android.