> On May 30, 2025, at 9:06 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, May 30, 2025 13:36 +0000 "Livingood, Jason" > <Jason_Livingood=40comcast.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Yes, that would be the minimum. Offer an alternative that does not >> require opting into a surveillance service. >> You could create an anonymous account and access YT via MASQUE >> proxies… > > Jason, > > I thought the goal was to allow people to access those materials, not > only anonymously, but without jumping through a lot of hoops. > Especially if one were more concerned about the hoops and wasted time > than about privacy, anonymous accounts and MASQUE proxies are just > more hoops and, IIR, hoops on a per-access basis. Actually, the > last time I looked, Google didn't require any real authentication to > create one of their accounts. If that is still true, wouldn't it be > easier just to create a special, mostly-bogus, Google account and use > it to access the IETF material rather than fussing with MASQUE > proxies, etc. Definitely not real secrecy, but, for the many > situations for which that is overkill... > > best, > john That’s still a lot of hoops though, and Google is incessantly persistent about keeping account info, account credentials, cookies, and all that on the end user’s machine. Forget to sign out (which is very easy to do) and suddenly you continue to be tracked everywhere you go, or so it seems. Even if “signed out” if you hit some other random YouTube video somewhere, it’s like, oh crap, which account does Google think I’m using or want to use? My company admin account? The personal account I use for some family videos? My son’s school Google Classroom account that I let him sign into once a few years ago? The church account that me and the music director and the musicians and the other sound techs use for sharing stuff for Sunday worship? -Andy
