I already feel "safer"
@bobstechsite Not as bad as sites refusing to sign you in for blocking the Goog's "sightseeing"
@bobstechsite It's not a ban, it's a declaration of compatibility.
Complaining about this would be like saying Google "banned" Internet Explorer 6 users because their browser can't sign in anymore.
Imho individuals have the right to choose what data they share with a company, and which scripts and programs run on their computer.
This looks to be a non-optional change.
@bobstechsite "We here at Google want to make sure you're safe from malicious scripts, so please make sure your scripts are enabled."
What kind of circular fucking logic...?
@bobstechsite Weird as hell. I mean, I have google's main domains whitelisted in NoScript anyway, but I don't see how having JS on could possibly be more secure than having it off...
Yay, I am part of the .1% :-)
@bobstechsite I predict this will be 0% useful at stopping attackers who know what they are doing and 100% useful at improving Google's ad metrics.
@bobstechsite more and more evil by the clock cycle.
uMatrix makes it easy to only turn it on when you need it
@lufthans Google normally requires captcha if you get your password wrong, so it can verify you as a human/collect training data for its self-driving cars.
I suspect for most people this will be a case of temporarily whitelisting a Google URL they'd rather not in the "NoScript" extension they rely on.
I don't authenticate much with Google for non-phone, and those services ( G+, G Docs ) require JS just to function
bobadon.rocks is one server in the network