Is 2FA/2SV permanent the instant you set it up for a Google Account?

[Andy Burnelli]

We already know that Apple 2FA is permanent, where the judge in a lawsuit
against Apple said it's your own fault for accepting the agreement in the
first place, so Apple has every right in the world to make it permanent.
*The 2FA permanence was "expressly authorized by the Plaintiffs*
*when they updated the [Apple] software"*

My only question here isn't about Apple but about Google:
Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?

i.e., If you accept it, can you _never_ back out (ever!) for any reason?
--
REF:
*Apple 2FA Case Dismissed by California Federal Court*
<https://securitycurrent.com/no-good-deed-apple-2fa-case-dismissed-by-california-federal-court/>

[Alan]

On 2022-03-07 2:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> We already know that Apple 2FA is permanent,

Really? Cite, please!

> where the judge in a lawsuit
> against Apple said it's your own fault for accepting the agreement in the
> first place, so Apple has every right in the world to make it permanent.
>  *The 2FA permanence was "expressly authorized by the Plaintiffs*
>  *when they updated the [Apple] software"*

Funny we don't get the source of what you claim is a quote.

[Bugsy]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> Funny we don't get the source of what you claim is a quote.

Of course you don't see the quote.
But everyone else did.

Maybe you should read the article before denying it says what it says.

"On April 7, 2020, California Federal Judge Lucy Koh granted
Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.

The Court ruled that all of the actions complained of
- the updating of the code, _the installation of the 2FA authentication_,
- the "trespass" to chattels - _all were expressly authorized_
_by the Plaintiffs when they updated the software_"
Brodsky v. Apple, Dkt. No. 5:19-cv-00712-LHK (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020).

Did you forget to click on the link before saying it didn't say what it did?
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

[Ant]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-07 2:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > We already know that Apple 2FA is permanent,

> Really? Cite, please!

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915 -- "Can I turn off two-factor
authentication after I???ve turned it on?

If you already use two-factor authentication, you can no longer turn it
off. Certain features in the latest versions of iOS and macOS require
this extra level of security, which is designed to protect your
information. If you recently updated your account, you can unenroll
within two weeks of enrollment. Just open your enrollment confirmation
email and click the link to return to your previous security settings.
Keep in mind, this makes your account less secure and means that you
can't use features that require higher security."
--
Slammy Monday so far!
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| |
\ _ /
( )

[nospam]

In article <t06284$1kf6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> My only question here isn't about Apple but about Google:
> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?

yep.

why are you opposed to security best practices?

someone as paranoid as you should have things locked down.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-07 3:02 p.m., Bugsy wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Funny we don't get the source of what you claim is a quote.
>
> Of course you don't see the quote.
> But everyone else did.
>
> Maybe you should read the article before denying it says what it says.
>
> "On April 7, 2020, California Federal Judge Lucy Koh granted
> Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
>
> The Court ruled that all of the actions complained of
> - the updating of the code, _the installation of the 2FA authentication_,
> - the "trespass" to chattels - _all were expressly authorized_
> _by the Plaintiffs when they updated the software_"
> Brodsky v. Apple, Dkt. No. 5:19-cv-00712-LHK (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020).
>
> Did you forget to click on the link before saying it didn't say what it did?

Where did I say that anything didn't say what it said?

Please: quote me.

What I didn't notice was Arlen's placing of what was his reference in a
part of his post normally reserved for people's "sig", and which by
design is removed when replying to a post.

It's the kind of dishonest behaviour we've come to expect from Arlen.

But now that I have read the (very short) article in its entirety, I can
say unequivocally that no text of it suggests that "We already know that
Apple 2FA is permanent".

And what's even more interesting is that I actually KNOW that you can
turn off two-factor authentication on one's AppleID. I knew it and then
I went and double-checked it... ...and I was right:

'How do I turn off two-step verification?

Make sure that you're still signed in to iCloud on each of your devices.
You might be asked for your Apple ID password.

Sign in to appleid.apple.com.

In the Sign-In and Security section, click Account Security.

Click Turn Off two-step verification. Click again to confirm.

Create new security questions and verify your date of birth.

You'll get an email confirming that two-step verification for your Apple
ID is off.'

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204152>

[Andy Burnelli]

Ant wrote:

> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915 -- "Can I turn off two-factor
> authentication after I???ve turned it on?
>
> If you already use two-factor authentication, you can no longer turn it
> off.

Thanks Ant for being an _adult_ by referencing what the Apple 2FA lawsuit
was all about, where I expressly kept the iKooks _off_ the newsgroup list
because iKooks brazenly deny all that they _hate_ about Apple, without ever
even clicking on the provided links.

They deny all they _hate_ about Apple just because they hate what Apple does
(because what Apple does is never what Apple _says_ it does).

No other reason.

The iKooks even brazenly deny what even Apple openly admits - which is the
fact that Apple's 2FA _is_ permanent. Once you're on, you can't get off.

You're _locked_ into whatever rules Apple wants you to be locked into.
As the judge said: It's your fault for "installing the software".

The question here is only whether Google pulls the same sleazy move as Apple
did.

Specifically, the question here is whether Google's 2FA/2SV is permanent
(as nospam seems to be claiming elsewhere but without even a single cite).

Since the iKooks are almost always wrong, I just wanted to check with the
adults as to whether Google also pulls the sleazy moves that Apple did.

Did they?
Did anyone here ever try to get _off_ of Google's 2FA/2SV?

What happened?
Did Google allow you to get _off_ of 2FA/2SV if you don't want it anymore?
--
Usenet is a team sport where each of us pitches in to help all the others.

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Thanks Ant for being an _adult_ by referencing what the Apple 2FA lawsuit
> was all about, where I expressly kept the iKooks _off_ the newsgroup list

BTW, to forestall the iKooks claiming the initial two week period is there,
we _know_ that (and we always knew that) as we discussed that explicitly in
the past and in the thread where nospam claimed Google does what Apple does.

What that two-week period indicates is Apple _can_ remove you from 2FA.
They just won't.

That's what the lawsuit was essentially all about.
And the judge said you clicked the link - it's YOUR FAULT.

OK.
If you don't want to be forever locked into Apple 2FA, just never say yes.

But what about Google?
The nospam iKook defended Apple by claiming Google does it too.

OK.
Maybe they do.
Maybe they don't.

The question here is whether Google pulled the same sleazy move as Apple?
Did they?
--
Most of us post on Usenet to help others out of the goodness of our heart.

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?

No, you van turn it off.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-08 00:02, Bugsy wrote:
> Did you forget to click on the link before saying it didn't say what it did?

The link was beneath the signature separator, thus not part of the
message. Many people ignore the signature. Here, it is displayed in
light grey.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[WaltS48]

What is it, and how do I turn it off?

--
OS: Fedora 35 Workstation - Gnome 41 Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
Same Nightmare, Different Day
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[Andy Burns]

WaltS48 wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>>> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?
>>
>> No, you van turn it off.
>
> What is it, and how do I turn it off?

Presumably if you don't know what it is, you won't have turned it on :-P

[Richmond]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> writes:

> We already know that Apple 2FA is permanent, where the judge in a
> lawsuit against Apple said it's your own fault for accepting the
> agreement in the first place, so Apple has every right in the world to
> make it permanent. *The 2FA permanence was "expressly authorized by
> the Plaintiffs* *when they updated the [Apple] software"*
>
> My only question here isn't about Apple but about Google: Does Google
> _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?
>
> i.e., If you accept it, can you _never_ back out (ever!) for any
> reason?

I've had it switched on since 2014 and there is an option to switch it
off in the google account settings. (I am not going to try it though).

[WaltS48]

On 3/7/22 5:50 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> We already know that Apple 2FA is permanent, where the judge in a lawsuit
> against Apple said it's your own fault for accepting the agreement in the
> first place, so Apple has every right in the world to make it permanent.
>  *The 2FA permanence was "expressly authorized by the Plaintiffs*
>  *when they updated the [Apple] software"*
>
> My only question here isn't about Apple but about Google:
> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?
>
> i.e., If you accept it, can you _never_ back out (ever!) for any reason?

https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/rhymeswithorange/

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burns wrote:

>> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?
>

> No, you can turn it off.

And yet, nospam claimed that Apple has no free will in that they were forced
to follow Google's lead when Apple decided to never allow you off 2FA once
you agreed to be on 2FA (after the two-week period expires, of course).

If Andy Burns is correct (and he almost always, if not always, is right),
that means, yet again, nospam brazenly fabricated that the reason Apple
won't let you turn off 2FA was because they were forced to do so by Google,
is dead wrong.

*Every time the iKooks _hate_ what Apple does, they fabricate why.*

It seems the iKooks _hate_ Apple for what Apple really is.
*But why are iKooks always making excuses for flaws they _hate_ about Apple?*

Why else would nospam fabricate so brazenly (and oh, so confidently) that
Google also makes the 2FA/2SV _permanent_ like Apple does?

It's a classic DK left of the first quartile trait to be so very wrong,
and yet, the iKooks are so very _confident_ in being so very wrong.

Having worked in high tech for decades in the Silicon Valley, people who are
almost always dead wrong and yet so confident in being dead wrong, couldn't
last a single day.

It's yet more evidence for what I have observed over the years about iKooks:
a. They have no education whatsoever
b. They have very low IQs
c. They have such low self esteem they hate that Apple lied to them.

So to compensate for Apple's lies, they lie.

nospam claimed brazenly & confidently Google 2FA/2SV is permanent.
Why are iKooks always making excuses for flaws they _hate_ about Apple?

[Andy Burnelli]

Richmond wrote:

> I've had it switched on since 2014 and there is an option to switch it
> off in the google account settings. (I am not going to try it though).

Thank you for confirming this, as did Andy Burns (whom I've never found to
ever be wrong on any material fact), particularly as I don't use 2FA/2SV.

The reason I asked is that when the topic came up in the Apple newsgroups,
the nospam iKook brazenly claimed that it was permanent for Google in
defense of his (now known to be fabricated excuse) of why Apple's will never
allow you to turn it off once the short trial period has expired.

It's the leftmost set of people in the Dunning-Kruger quartile who do what
nospam just did, and what he _repeatedly_ does with oh, so much confidence.

a. They derive most of their self esteem from Apple advertisements
b. Hence, when Apple flaws exist, they are _desperate_ to deny they exist
c. Which, in this case was why nospam claimed Google's 2SV/2FA was permanent

Each fact the iKooks _hate_ about Apple, they first brazenly deny it.
When it's no longer deniable they blame Google for "making" Apple do it.
When that is no longer deniable, they turn into instant kindergarten kids.

Why this is important is that most people think the iKooks exist simply
because Apple products are different, but that's _not_ the reason.

Linux products are different. Android is different from Windows.
No.

The reason iKooks exist is this, which I realized after long study:
a. All the iKooks own a substandard IQ
b. Their brains can't separate fact from propaganda

The propaganda feeds them that Apple can do no wrong, which they believe.
Hence, when Apple does do them wrong, they _hate_ Apple for lying to them.

Their entire belief system was a figment of Apple's propaganda, not facts.
Hence, every fact about Apple instantly _destroys_ their imaginary beliefs!

Facts are _dangerous_ to the iKooks.
That's why they all, to a man, _hate_ all facts about Apple products.

The childish way the iKooks deal with facts is simply to deny they exist.
Child: Santa exists.
Adult: No it doesn't.
Child: But I saw him at the mall.
Adult: That was just a man dressed as Santa.
Child: No. It _was_ Santa.
Adult: Unfortunately, Santa is just a marketing gimmick.
Child: Liar! Liar... Liar... Pants on fire!

It's what makes them iKooks.
I have never met such strange people in the flesh in my entire life.
--
The problem with low IQ people like nospam isn't that they're incredibly
stupid, but that they believe everything that they are fed by marketing.

[Andy Burnelli]

WaltS48 wrote:

>> i.e., If you accept it, can you _never_ back out (ever!) for any reason?
>
> https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/rhymeswithorange/

Hehhehheh... that image is hilariously apropos to 2FA/2SV!
<https://resources.arcamax.com/newspics/224/22406/2240671.gif>

I'm not on Usenet for amusement, but for three reasons only:
1. To learn
2. To teach
3. To understand

While amusement isn't on my list, that image was germane to the topic.

However, in summary, this appears to be the _facts_ of the matter:
A. The iKooks fabricated the excuse that Google 2SV/2FA was permanent.
B. Simply because they _hate_ that Apple marketing lied to them (again).

FACT:
a. With iOS, you're _locked_ into 2FA permanently (after a short period).
b. With Google, you're not.

As the judge clearly said (paraphrased), it's your own fault for saying yes.
--
I don't care all child-like low-IQ iKooks are uneducated & of low self
esteem; but due to that, they feel the need to fabricate excuses for Apple.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> The link was beneath the signature separator, thus not part of the
> message. Many people ignore the signature. Here, it is displayed in
> light grey.

For those like Alan Baker who brazenly denied the Judge said that, here is
the link from that court case (which, ironically Apple won, by the way).

*Apple 2FA Case Dismissed by California Federal Court*
<https://securitycurrent.com/no-good-deed-apple-2fa-case-dismissed-by-california-federal-court/>

Not only did Alan Baker brazenly claim that link didn't say what it clearly
says, but Alan Baker also brazenly claimed that the link doesn't even exist.

What makes these very strange iKooks so different is not that they are
proponents for an operating system, since many people like Linux,
Android,and Windows.

No.
What makes the iKooks so different isn't the hardware at all.

What makes iKooks _different_ from normal people is...
a. They derive most (all?) of their self esteem from Apple advertisements

b. Hence, when Apple flaws exist, they are _desperate_ to deny they exist
c. Which, in this case was why nospam claimed Google's 2SV/2FA was permanent

And in this case is why Alan Baker denied the court said what it said.

It's the confluence of these attributes that makes an iKook an iKook:
1. All the iKooks own substandard IQs
2. None of them have an education to speak of
3. They derive most (all?) of their self esteem from what Apple feeds them
4. To the point that they lost the ability to separate fact from propaganda
As a result...
5. All iKooks fabricate Apple functionality for that simply doesn't exist
6. And they formulate kindergarten excuses for every flaw in Apple products
7. To the point that they brazenly deny what even Apple openly admits

The result is that iKooks belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ facts.
a. It's all propaganda
b. And zero actual facts

Fundamentally, facts are _dangerous_ to purely imaginary belief systems.
So they brazenly deny facts even exist to protect their fragile beliefs.

They even deny the facts without even _clicking_ on the links.
Hell, Alan Baker even claimed the links that existed, didn't exist.
And then he claimed what the judge said, wasn't what the judge said.

In all my years in university and in the Silicon Valley startups, I've never
met, in the flesh, people as strange as these interesting iKooks are.

[Alan]

And that isn't accidental on Arlen's part...

...it's the choice of a weasel.

[Alan]

That's not a presumption I make with the users I support.

Just today I had a client ask about why he was getting a message about
his Dropbox filling up...

...when he didn't even know he had Dropbox.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-08 8:49 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> The link was beneath the signature separator, thus not part of the
>> message. Many people ignore the signature. Here, it is displayed in
>> light grey.
>
> For those like Alan Baker who brazenly denied the Judge said that, here is
> the link from that court case (which, ironically Apple won, by the way).
> *Apple 2FA Case Dismissed by California Federal Court*
> <https://securitycurrent.com/no-good-deed-apple-2fa-case-dismissed-by-california-federal-court/>
>
>
> Not only did Alan Baker brazenly claim that link didn't say what it clearly
> says,

I made no such claim.

> but Alan Baker also brazenly claimed that the link doesn't even
> exist.
>

I didn't claim that, either.

[Andy Burns]

Alan wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> WaltS48 wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?
>>>>
>>>> No, you van turn it off.
>>>
>>> What is it, and how do I turn it off?
>>
>> Presumably if you don't know what it is, you won't have turned it on :-P
>
> That's not a presumption I make with the users I support.

Given how far and wide various google/oauth/2fa threads have spread this week,
I'm pretty sure Walt knows what it is ...

[WaltS48]

I know OAuth2 isn't 2FA, but didn't know what the hubbub was about 2FA/2SV.

Now I do thanks to Richmond who provided this link.

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6010255

[Andy Burnelli]

WaltS48 wrote:

> Now I do thanks to Richmond who provided this link.
>
> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6010255

This all hit me out of the blue this week too, where I "think" the issue is:
*Google will soon kill login/password access to your Google mail account*

That means you have (how many?) choices for 3rd party MUAs like TB or K9:
1. OAuth2 (which TB supports, but not K-9 Mail)
2. App Passwords (which themselves require 2FA at least once, maybe more)
3. 2FA (I think)
Someone should correct me where I err above as this is critical to know.

BTW, I almost never log into my Google email account using a web browser,
but how are you supposed to log into your Google email account after May
30th using a web browser if you can't use your account & password?

[Wolf K]

Ditto with MS's Cloud.


--
Wolf K <https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com>
If 2021 was a math word-problem: If you're going down a river at 2 MPH
and your canoe loses a wheel, how much pancake mix would you need to
re-shingle your roof? (Anonymous)

[Wolf K]

Related query (I think):

Which 3rd party PW managers can handle this?

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Does Google _also_ make 2FA/2SV permanent?

Since some people may be confused, Google equates 2SV with 2FA:
<https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/185839>
"With 2-Step Verification (also known as two-factor authentication),
you add an extra layer of security to your account in case your
password is stolen. After you set up 2-Step Verification,
you'll sign in to your account in two steps using:
1. Something you know, like your password
2. Something you have, like your phone"

While some said 2SV is different from 2FA, Google doesn't think it is.