thomas

@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social So true! One little thing: This would also be bad if it weren't a bogus excuse. Because Remote Attestation in a device for the general public in itself is evil, and it will always be abused. The whole purpose of Remote Attestation is to enable a service to ban people from using arbitrary hardware and OSes. And in extension, to ban people from using arbitrary client apps for those services.

@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social More generally, the point of this kind of attestation in the general public is always to enforce developer's interests *against* the user. Often also anti-competitive. Even if they supported GrapheneOS at some point, general OS development would still be blocked. And even you as GrapheneOS would make yourselves dependent: They can always threaten you to withdraw attestation if they don't like your future plans for even better privacy protection against their abuse.

@noah@23.social Die EU-Implementierung setzt aktuell genauso auf die Monopolisten Google und Apple. Diese Art Altersverifikation kann auch prinzipbedingt nur funktionieren, wenn zentrale Stellen alle Nutzergeräte fremdbestimmen. Und darum geht es letztendlich auch. @andre_meister@chaos.social

@droidboy Es erfordert genauso und vielleicht noch stärker DRM-abgesperrte Geräte, Betriebssysteme und Apps. Was ja das eigentliche Ziel hinter der ganzen Initiative ist. Also keine Verbesserung. @Lilith

@CodingPhysicist Das prinzipielle Problem ist nicht die Abhängigkeit von Google/Apple, sondern dass hiermit Remote Attestation eingeführt wird: Der Anbieter eines Dienstes kann technisch erzwingen welchen Zustand die Nutzer-Geräte haben dürfen. Wenn jetzt ein deutscher Hersteller den Zustand deines Geräts erzwingt, macht es das nur wenig besser. "Vertrauenswürdig" nicht im Sinne der Nutzer, sondern im Sinne des Anbieters, der damit den unvertrauenswürdigen Nutzer erpresst. @dazzr @kuketzblog

@xro@chaos.social Not sure if they actually believe that, but to be cynical it seems they are just jealous that they are not included in the club. Their proposed attestation can and will be abused just like Google's. That is the nature of hardware-based remote attestation of end-user devices. Quote: "locking users into the stock OS without a valid security reason. " They seem fine when users are locked into their OS *with* a in their opinion valid security reason.

@xro@chaos.social Each app developer with backend service must include the specific OS public key in their allow-list. That only means that the middle-man Google is now removed, but the app developer still has all the power imposing what OS and software the user runs. So the app still won't run "basically everywhere".