this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
71 points (97.3% liked)

Privacy

4543 readers
374 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] schwim@piefed.zip 52 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Google is rolling in mobile verification to ReCAPTCHA, requiring an approved phone and if on Android, a Google account.

Privacy-based phones will be locked out of this. You can choose between remaining secure and private or viewing a website using Google's ReCAPTCHA service.

https://support.google.com/recaptcha/?hl=en

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Internet was fun for a time... in the beginning... then capitalism used it to implement fascism and enslave humanity.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The internet didn't make everyone vote for Trump.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Well… they certainly helped

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn’t do much to stop it, either.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago

Almost like it is irrelevant to how the charlatans and liars got into power...

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

I don't believe it, sorry

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Can you technically install Google Play Services on GraphineOS? Obviously, it would be a major hit to your privacy compared to the previous system, but still technically possible...

[–] schwim@piefed.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Yes, play services can be installed and used on Graphene, I have it installed currently and it meets the version requirements set forth in the FAQ.

That being said, there's speculation in the groups that Google will eventually go the same way with this as they did for locking out privacy users from the Google Pay system, saying it's not a trusted OS. This could very well end the same way. I can see a ton of people dipping their toes in the waters of privacy-based operating systems on their phones to go back to Google's Android because they don't want to lose access to every single site that uses ReCAPTCHA in far greater numbers than were persuaded by locking them out of pay services.

[–] lemmysmash@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, but fuck Google, their services and everyone using their captcha. Don't give them your time, money and traffic.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

+1 on fuck Google. "Can" couldn't be farther from "should"

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Could try using an older used phone (I have like 2 old Motorola's) with stock ROM

[–] Dhs92@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago

Yes? It's officially supported, too. It sandboxes Google play and limits its system access

[–] kbal@fedia.io 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

As we know, only humans are capable of reading QR codes.

[–] schwim@piefed.zip 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's not the point of the QR code. The point is Google is requiring a certified Google account and phone to allow access. Privacy-based phones are not welcome. I would suggest closing the tab when these pop up.

reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification is the section at the bottom that's relevant.

https://support.google.com/recaptcha/?hl=en

[–] kbal@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago

Yikes. I was imagining they were only trying to trick people into using their phones that could be tracked (in addition to jumping through arbitrarily placed hoops in the traditional captcha style) not that they were actually requiring a phone running Google spyware. That's insane.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Eh? Since when can humans decode a QR code on the fly, we always need a machine to do it.

This is a method Google is using to track website usage to actual people by making them scan a code on a device attached to a Google account.

[–] kaidenshi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you missed the sarcasm.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Always a possibility.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago

If you read the spec it isn't impossible to decode QR codes by hand. It isn't what I'd call easy, but it is more tedious than hard.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

we always need a machine to do it.

That's the point. Recognizing a car; stairs; busses; motorcycles; stoplights; we used to be the only ones who were able to do this, but now LLMs can likely do them better and faster than we can.

But QR codes have always been deciphered by machines, so how would me using a machine to scan the QR prove my humanity? It just shows there's a phone with my ID on it. It's just 2FA, not are-you-human.

[–] lukstru@piefed.social 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I thought this was a scam, but apparently it's just Google??

Is there a difference?

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

If I were to ever encounter that, I'd just Ctrl+W.

[–] lemmysmash@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago

Yet another totalitarian and anticompetitive move by the duopoly. Avoid at all cost.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116550899908879585

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I ran into this and just changed the browser to "desktop mode" then it went back to the typical one you'd see.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 20 hours ago

There is still also the option for a visual (previous norm) and audio version, which they might have to keep offering.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah i refreshed and got a regular one.

[–] gndagreborn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Honestly with digital ID being ham fisted into everything... I was hoping things wouldn't get much worse.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

cc @IndustryStandard@lemmy.world stop using archive.is

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

is internet archive the only alternative?

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In anddition to the tracking use, this also works to verify if the account being used to verify is adult or not.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I guarantee you, this is not the use case.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Either way, it’s a bad thing

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My initial thought wasn’t communicated in the first post; people may not link the tracking to the age verification or vice versa.

This does feel like an a/b test to slowly introduce an entirely different level of tracking and privacy invasion.

Ah. You're right. Not everyone is/was aware of this taking place before this post, and its implications.