I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.

Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
Attestation API terms of service.

Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.

All I wanted to do was pay for some components.

Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.

Sylvia.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:00:04 +1100
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The
> app was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead
> of showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and
> conditions.
>
> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that
> I agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
> Attestation API terms of service.
>
> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>
> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>
> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>
> Sylvia.

In my opinion, I think with how the world is going right now it's
better to go back to cash or use bitcoin. Credit cards are an inherent
privacy and security risk and we all eventually get bound to those
stupid Terms and Conditions one way or the other.

The only way to get away from it is if we remove ourselves from that and use a more logical and private system.

Cheers.

--
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.

The answer to that is often 'I don't have a mobile phone' which gets rid of
a lot of their silliness about installing their app (aka attack vector). If
your bank won't talk to you without having a smartphone (there are some 'app
only' banks) it might not be the right bank for you.

(I'm not sure what the app gains you over using their website on your phone,
anyway)

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> (I'm not sure what the app gains you over using their website on your
> phone, anyway)

Generally nothing is gained -- unless you find "push notifications"
enjoyable.

But, from /their/ viewpoint, everything is gained, because the app
allows them access to a treasure trove of tracking and monitoring data
that they can then monitize by selling it to advertisers.

Lame. Which supplier was this so we can avoid it?

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.

> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
> Attestation API terms of service.

> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.

> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.

> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.

> Sylvia.

--
It's Cyber Monday again! It's shoppy and BUSY times again!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 01-Dec-21 10:46 am, Ant wrote:
> Lame. Which supplier was this so we can avoid it?
>
>
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
>> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
>> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
>> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
>
>> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
>> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
>> Attestation API terms of service.
>
>> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>
>> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>
>> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>
>> Sylvia.
>

Well, it wasn't the supplier that caused this, it was my bank -
Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Most people in this group won't suffer
from them, though I doubt they have a monopoly on stupid T&C nonsense.

The requirement to comply with Google API terms of service etc. appears
to be something that Google imposes on companies that use their APIs.
That is, Google has a requirement to impose a requirement on the end user.

Sylvia.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:00:04 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

>I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
>card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
>was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
>showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
>
>Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
>agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
>Attestation API terms of service.
>
>Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>
>All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>
>Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>
>Sylvia.

So, I'm going with "a bit of both" here.

SafetyNet is Google's way of verifying that apps are what they're supposed to be. On the one hand, Black and Decker's
thermostat controller app requiring SafetyNet is a bit of an unnecessary use, but on the other hand, finance apps
wanting to make sure I'm not running a modded version of a banking application seems at least somewhat
understandable...especially since there was a news report on ZDNet yesterday about an Android trojan that involved
40,000 people running malware-laden versions of banking apps. So yes, I agree that SafetyNet has the added bonus of
ensuring that people like me need to choose between running financial apps or having a rooted phone that can mess with
advertising revenue...but I think that there's at least some merit to wanting financial transactions to be secure.

Google's ToS runs deep, for sure, but it's probably no longer than the EULA required for store owners to have PINpads
that take a traditional credit card. That part's invisible to you because the store deals with it, with the store also
being liable for fraudulent charges in the event it's traced back to a cyber attack of some kind. Since your phone
becomes involved in that process, Google is going to write a EULA that reflects the fact that they're facilitating a
payment and that they intend to limit their liability.

Going back to cash is certainly a good idea, but I'm not going to lie...I'm addicted to my AmEx and the free airplane
tickets I get as a result of transferring money to people where, even if I sent checks or envelopes full of cash, the
transaction is being documented on their end anyway, being siphoned off to the very database I'd prefer to not be
in...so, if the tracking is unavoidable and one option involves free plane tickets, assistance with travel arrangements,
an advocate who will handle the lion's share of issues in the event of a major discrepancy, and, y'know...a line of
credit...I figure that going to cash-only at this point - at least for me - is more trouble than it's worth.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 01-Dec-21 10:46 am, Ant wrote:
>> Lame. Which supplier was this so we can avoid it?
>>
>>
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
>>> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
>>> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
>>> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
>>
>>> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
>>> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
>>> Attestation API terms of service.
>>
>>> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>>
>>> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>>
>>> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>
> Well, it wasn't the supplier that caused this, it was my bank -
> Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Most people in this group won't suffer
> from them, though I doubt they have a monopoly on stupid T&C nonsense.

I actually opened an acount with them after suffering through
endless pain trying to use an Australia Post pre-paid credit card
since they switched from Visa to Mastercard. Ironically for my last
payment the CBA card was declined and I had to use the Aus Post one
instead. I have no idea how most people get by with online
payments, if it wasn't for the necessary flight to the USA I'd be
quite keen on using cash.

The Aus Post card has an Email verification process which was down
the first time I tried to use it and I spent an hour on the phone
with the heavily-accented support desk convincing them of the fact
that emails really weren't getting through. Later I also discovered
that it was simply rejected by a lot of websites (though now I've
discovered that such problems can happen with the Visa CBA card as
well).

> The requirement to comply with Google API terms of service etc. appears
> to be something that Google imposes on companies that use their APIs.
> That is, Google has a requirement to impose a requirement on the end user.

PayPal also try to use Google ReCaptcha every time I use them,
though as they're blocked by default in my browser it (very slowly)
loads some "Arkose Labs" Captcha thing which likes to alternate
between regular concentration-required image recognition tasks and
such mysteriously unverifiable verification questions as "choose
your favourite colour" and even "pick any square". It requires me
to go through this twice in a row as well, usually with the same
challenge, and takes so long to connect/download over my internet
connection that I generally open another window and do something
else while it's loading. Paying by card is much faster, when it
works...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
>
> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
> Attestation API terms of service.
>
> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>
> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>
> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>
> Sylvia.
>

I just don’t play along. This summer my wife and I were in a hip vacation
hot spot and wanted to eat at a joint. They said it’d be a 1/2 hour wait
and I told them I’d be back then. The woman told us that, no, we’d have to
sign up with that restaurant reservation app to get our assigned place.

I asked to speak to the front of the house girl’s manager and told them we
don’t have phones, would they still want us as customers? And the manager
seated us right then and there.

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To
>> use my credit card, I was required to enter a code send
>> to an app on my phone. The app was already installed, and
>> I've used it previously, but instead of showing me the
>> code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
>>
>> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further
>> requirement that I agree to comply with Google's APIs
>> Terms or Service, and SafetyNet Attestation API terms of
>> service.
>>
>> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
>>
>> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
> I just don?t play along. This summer my wife and I were in
> a hip vacation hot spot and wanted to eat at a joint. They
> said it?d be a 1/2 hour wait and I told them I?d be back
> then. The woman told us that, no, we?d have to sign up
> with that restaurant reservation app to get our assigned
> place.
>
> I asked to speak to the front of the house girl?s manager
> and told them we don?t have phones, would they still want
> us as customers? And the manager seated us right then and
> there.
>

Applause!!

I don't have a cell phone at all much less a "smart"
one.

Some can't seem to grasp the concept that I don't
feel the need to be "on call" 24/7. If someone needs
to contact me during the short periods of time that
I'm away from my landline, they can call back later.

I can choose which soup to buy in the grocery store
all by myself too. I don't need to call a friend to
ask their opinion, so no need for outgoing calls
when I'm away from home either.

Nyssa, who, if necessary, could carry her portable
amateur radio handy-talkie to use in emergencies if
she were heading out for more than an hour or two
as an alternative

On 12/05/2021 05:28 AM, Nyssa wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
>> ...I asked to speak to the front of the house girl?s manager
>> and told them we don?t have phones, would they still want
>> us as customers? And the manager seated us right then and
>> there.
>
> Applause!!

+1

> I don't have a cell phone at all much less a "smart"
> one.

I do, and I generally carry it when I'm out of the house, more for the
camera than the communication facilities. I've always regretted the
paucity of photos of my pre-digital life, especially since we did all
our traveling in the 70s and 80s when the kids were small.

BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.

I deeply resent businesses which claim the right to cost me money by
insisting on a phone call or text message in order to verify my identity
for THEIR purposes -- email is just fine and is free on my computer.

> Some can't seem to grasp the concept that I don't
> feel the need to be "on call" 24/7. If someone needs
> to contact me during the short periods of time that
> I'm away from my landline, they can call back later.
>
> I can choose which soup to buy in the grocery store
> all by myself too. I don't need to call a friend to
> ask their opinion, so no need for outgoing calls
> when I'm away from home either.

I call home to inform hubby that I didn't die on the ski slope. I call
home to find out if I need to pick up anything while I'm <somewhere>.
Maybe one or two calls/month average -- or not.

> Nyssa, who, if necessary, could carry her portable
> amateur radio handy-talkie to use in emergencies if
> she were heading out for more than an hour or two
> as an alternative

I've had ONE need for an emergency phone call -- a flat tire, and I
couldn't find the stupid wheel-lock key (my mom's car) so I used it to
call the Auto Club. If I hadn't had a phone I could have walked into
Home Depot and borrowed theirs.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Mr Panetta also revealed that the US Navy Seals made the final
decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president."
--S. Swinford, The Telegraph
[Aside from that minor error, those Seals did a fantastic job!] --Bev

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> I deeply resent businesses which claim the right to cost me money by
> insisting on a phone call or text message in order to verify my
> identity for THEIR purposes -- email is just fine and is free on my
> computer.

This is often the result of a leftover belief that "phone calls" are
more secure than internet emails. At one point in time, in a time long
ago, this belief had some validity. The phone network was an isolated
network, and only a few large entities had any access to it at all
(beyond the 'access' provided by having a telephone handset and thereby
ability to make/take calls, 'access' above is meant as "network
carriage"). Because it was isolated, it grew an illusion of security
(isloated meaning in many business major's minds as "can't be easily
tapped into, therefore secure"). And to some extent this was a mildly
correct belief, as the few monopoly players that had "backend carriage"
access to the network did tend to provide some level of "security" (a
level more similar to a "lock on the barn door" as opposed to a
"highly encrypted comm's channel").

Because of that history, far too many businessfolk still believe that a
phone call (and/or text message, as it is "on a phone") is somehow
magically "more secure" than sending something over the internet, even
though the "phone world" changed out from under them and that "secure
phone call" is highly likely to now be traversing some part of the
internet (if not being almost entirely on the internet) and no more,
nor less, secure anymore than the email would have been.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
> data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
> Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
> distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.

There are navigation apps that work offline; they store map data on the
phone and do all searches, route plotting, etc. from there. Magic Earth is
one such app for Android.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 12/05/2021 02:16 PM, Rich wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I deeply resent businesses which claim the right to cost me money by
>> insisting on a phone call or text message in order to verify my
>> identity for THEIR purposes -- email is just fine and is free on my
>> computer.
>
> This is often the result of a leftover belief that "phone calls" are
> more secure than internet emails...

Our accounts are community property -- Kalifornia considers husband and
wife as one person with equal rights regarding the community property.

BUT one Entity insists on separate logins. Before they'll accomplish a
transaction they have to get hubby's authorization. Accordingly, I put
him on the phone and he tells them his name, address, phone number and
birthdate. Then he hands the phone back to me.

Has it never occurred to these Entities that my lover and I might have
strangled my husband and that I told the lover what he needed to know to
make The Entity happy? I don't want to ask The Entity that -- I figure
they might completely freeze the account.

--
Cheers, Bev
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting
them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for
no good reason. - Jack Handy

On 12/06/2021 08:17 AM, scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
>> data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
>> Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
>> distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.
>
> There are navigation apps that work offline; they store map data on the
> phone and do all searches, route plotting, etc. from there. Magic Earth is
> one such app for Android.

Google Maps is/was supposed to do that, but it seems to have become iffy
recently. I'll look at ME...

--
Cheers, Bev
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting
them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for
no good reason. - Jack Handy

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
This happens with like 80% of non-Free Software I have to occasionally
use. "Let me just quickly open up this app" - 3 updates, 5 new TOS...

> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
> Attestation API terms of service.
I honestly don't care about what is in those Terms anymore, I already
expect them to collect all data they can possibly scrape from me and
sell them to not just the highest bidder, but also the lowest and
everyone in between.

> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
They are also so full of legalese, there is no way in hell you can
understand them without a lawyer.

> All I wanted to do was pay for some components.
>
> Perhaps it's time to go back to cash.
I wish I could still buy hardware anywhere I could pay with cash.
Altough that topic is basically dead already considering the fact that
every note is serialized and they probably are tracking who gets which
note from an ATM and who pays in which note again, to prosecute money
laundering and black market stuff.

Johnannes

On 11/12/2021 15:14, Johannes Bülow wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> I was buying electronic components from a supplier. To use my credit
>> card, I was required to enter a code send to an app on my phone. The app
>> was already installed, and I've used it previously, but instead of
>> showing me the code, it required me to accept new terms and conditions.
> This happens with like 80% of non-Free Software I have to occasionally
> use. "Let me just quickly open up this app" - 3 updates, 5 new TOS...
>
>> Embedded in those terms and conditions is a further requirement that I
>> agree to comply with Google's APIs Terms or Service, and SafetyNet
>> Attestation API terms of service.
> I honestly don't care about what is in those Terms anymore, I already
> expect them to collect all data they can possibly scrape from me and
> sell them to not just the highest bidder, but also the lowest and
> everyone in between.
>
>> Unsurprisingly all of these run to many pages.
> They are also so full of legalese, there is no way in hell you can
> understand them without a lawyer.

What we need in life is "two way forever contracts" (my term)

When engaging services* ye get to give a contract to the seller, as well
as the seller gives a contract to you as the purchasers. Both of these
can be electronic documents, standardised, so that when ye contact a
service - communication can be immediately halted if there is something
that not both parties are entirely in agreement with.

* anything - application installs[1], visiting websites, sales of goods,
employment[2]

[1] - It would save faffing about with installs. If your forever
contract says "I accept that recordings from my microphone may be used
for sales purposes for anyone" than sign up with things like, say Amazon
Alexa, would be a lot quicker and easier.

[2] - why is it when you accept a job offer, the employer gets to give
you a contract to abide to, but you don't likewise give him a detailed
one to treat you decently - other than receive a compensatory pay check?

--
Adrian C

Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
> [2] - why is it when you accept a job offer, the employer gets to give
> you a contract to abide to, but you don't likewise give him a detailed
> one to treat you decently - other than receive a compensatory pay check?

I give him one. It's the collective agreement. It details a lot of
things for both sides, like me not going on Strike as long as the
collective agreement is valid and upheld.

Op 6-12-2021 om 17:17 schreef scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
>> data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
>> Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
>> distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.
>
> There are navigation apps that work offline; they store map data on the
> phone and do all searches, route plotting, etc. from there. Magic Earth is
> one such app for Android.
>

And how does Magic Earth know where I am?

Rink

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 13:45:35 +0100
Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
> Op 6-12-2021 om 17:17 schreef scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us:
> > The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
> >> data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
> >> Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
> >> distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.
> >
> > There are navigation apps that work offline; they store map data on the
> > phone and do all searches, route plotting, etc. from there. Magic Earth is
> > one such app for Android.
> >
>
>
> And how does Magic Earth know where I am?

It's a kind of magic ?

Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
> Op 6-12-2021 om 17:17 schreef scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BUT I have a super-cheap prepaid plan which includes few calls and NO
>>> data; if I want to actually use the web I have to find a free hotspot.
>>> Normally this is no problem, although I would have liked to know the
>>> distance to the next gas station in the middle of New Mexico once.
>>
>> There are navigation apps that work offline; they store map data on the
>> phone and do all searches, route plotting, etc. from there. Magic Earth is
>> one such app for Android.
>
> And how does Magic Earth know where I am?

GPS. GPS works wherever you have a clear(ish) view of the sky.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?