8 ms·

I agree, you should be able to run anything you want, root your device, etc., but you also have to accept the consequences of that. If an app can no longer veri

I agree, you should be able to run anything you want, root your device, etc., but you also have to accept the consequences of that. If an app can no longer verify its own integrity, certain features are simply impossible to implement securely. Think of it this way: A physical ID (which is what we're trying to replace here) also has limitations, it looks a certain way, has a certain size, etc. Just because somebody wants a smaller ID or one with a larger font or a passport in a different colour or whatever, doesn't mean that this should be allowed or possible. Some limitations exist for a good reason

applfanboysbgon 6mo ago
Comparing being able to run the hardware and software of your choice to "wanting a passport in a different color or whatever" is so completely fucked, and it's beyond insane as a justification for giving two American tech companies with a well established track record for doing evil control over your citizens' ID. The world has gone absolutely mad, what the fuck am I even witnessing? It is quite literally becoming 1984 in front of my eyes, with people complying completely voluntarily and openly advocating for it, not even a threat of force to make it happen.
- Avamander 6mo ago
  You keep lashing out at people in this thread. Demanding full control over something like an ID will fundamentally not happen. The same way you won't have full control over the way passports or paper bills are made. Take for example the expectation that some poor fool's ID can't be cloned and reused by malicious actors - full control directly contradicts that. It will not and must not be possible.
  - applfanboysbgon 6mo ago
    We don't need 'full control' over an ID. We need the status quo, where we have mostly have control over our devices, and where paper IDs are still the foundation of society. Things are fine the way they are. There are problems, sure, but no problems that are made better by an all-encompassing surveillance state. If I am lashing out, it is because this is perhaps the most dangerous thing I've ever seen proposed, and it is deeply distressing how people are sleepwalking into it. To be honest, if I were German, I would probably just kill myself the day I was legally mandated by my government to register my identity with Google. That might sound hyperbolic, but I'm really not kidding. I have lived with privacy, anonymity, and freedom for all of my life. If the future of this world is one where the government and Google have complete control over every single thing you do, I'd rather die having lived a satisfying life than witness the horrors that are to come.
    - tzs 6mo ago
      How do you use your paper ID to to prove identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away whom you are conducting an online transaction with?
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - lejalv 6mo ago
        It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary. Proof: things mostly work now without all the surveillance state shenanigans. More proof: humans have lived full and fulfilling lives without "proving identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away"
        Avamander 6mo ago
        > It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary. It's important enough that people do so without any eID, using methods both more invasive and less reliable. Gas bills, document photos, having to take videos and pictures of yourself. Humans have lived in caves and died of preventable diseases, it doesn't mean it's a better way of living.
    - integralid 6mo ago
      >To be honest, if I were German, I would probably just kill myself the day I was legally mandated by my government to register my identity with Google. That might sound hyperbolic, but I'm really not kidding. This is honestly not a good argument - it makes you sound desperate and puts in doubt your mental stability. I don't think you actually have mental problems, I just mean this this kind of argument comes off bad. Also nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have to own a digital ID. It just makes things easier, because you can sign things over the internet, or present your phone instead of your plastic ID. Both things already have alternatives (qualified signatures and regular physical ID), so no immediate harm is being done. Don't get me wrong, I am personally anti bigtech, I try to degoogle as much as possible, and I find the thought of my government coercing me to use google/apple duopoly repulsive. I dislike that, but using phones (instead of for example dedicated hardware) IS pragmatic, and you are not forced to do anything. Sent from my pixel phone.
- viktorcode 6mo ago
  > with a well established track record for doing evil control Can you please elaborate on that record?
  - applfanboysbgon 6mo ago
    The clauses are [with a well established track record for doing evil] [control over your citizens' ID], if that's not clear. I wonder from where your quote cut off if my sentence was misunderstood. As to the well-established track record of doing evil... gestures broadly everything? Google in particular has built an empire on stripping away people's privacy, and they regularly ruin people's livelihood by eg. shutting down Youtube accounts incorrectly with automated systems and no way of ever reaching a human for support unless you're famous enough to make it a PR issue. Apple is the same, just recently with a thread on HN lamenting that Apple was destroying their business because they revoked their dev license, or in other words, a private company unilaterally revoked the ability of a business to create mobile software for billions of devices. And now we want to give them control over our IDs? ????????????????????????
  - fsflover 6mo ago
    Search for "Google" in my favorite submissions on HN.
RandomGerm4n 6mo ago
Users have the right to modify any app running on their own device. Software security should never depend on the user having no control over their own device. Smartphones are essentially just regular computers, and on them you can use a debugger and do whatever you want. Viewing smartphones as closed systems like game consoles where you need the manufacturer’s permission for everything only leads us into the dystopia that Richard Stallman described as early as 1997 in his short story "The Right to Read"
- Avamander 6mo ago
  Once SafetyNet was brought to Android a decade ago the tendency has been clear - these freedoms are going to be restricted heavily. Because how do you make sure it's the user who does those modifications, willingly and well-informed? That it's not a malicious actor, not an user getting socially engineered or phished? Incredibly difficult compared to the current alternative. If it's not a software root of trust that provides an attestable environment like Android or iOS. It's going to be a hardware root of trust that provides an attestable hardware environment, like SGX. I can predict no other practical avenue taken. Unless the orangutan really forces a demonstration on how untrustworthy these environments can be and a lot of money and effort is spent.
  - 649028763 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - lvass 6mo ago
    You can maybe, trust the user to handle it's own certificate in their own devices? Though I admit requiring attestation is probably a good default.
    - Avamander 6mo ago
      One important feature of a legal ID is that it's hard to copy, so attestation from the hardware storage would have to be basically mandatory. But yeah, the user could have a choice to this extent.
GranPC 6mo ago
Well, in that case, if they want full control and attestation yadda yadda, I'm fine with them shipping me a device they fully control exclusively for use of this stuff. But if we're talking about my smartphone that I paid for with my money that I worked for, I will do whatever I damn please with it. So I guess that means eIDAS will be inaccessible to me.
- izacus 6mo ago
  That device is a personal ID card with a chip. Many EU countries issue them.
  - klabb3 6mo ago
    Why not just have the Secure Enclave in the ID card and use NFC to communicate with it? Think about it, you literally have dozens of computers between you and the provider. Routers, middleboxes, load balancers, servers etc, all insecure or untrusted, but somehow my device needs to have their special rootkit and hardware DRM. A separate device that can be provisioned with ID is the least to ask. If the government doesn’t trust me with my device, fine, but then return the favor - I don’t trust them either. Both governments and corporations that are gonna use this have long track records of invasive, often illegal spying - whereas my track record is letting people mind their own business.
    - izacus 6mo ago
      This is exactly what the ID cards I'm talking about are. You tap them to the phone or a desktop reader and it works. You just invented something that already exists. eIDAS just takes this one step further and gives you an option to not have to carry your card with you. But if you refuse to have an attested phone, then you pay those 20EUR to get the ID card (which you probably need for other uses as well) and move on with your life.
      - klabb3 6mo ago
        > This is exactly what the ID cards I'm talking about are. You tap them to the phone or a desktop reader and it works. You just invented something that already exists. Great, thanks for clarifying. Please be mindful not everyone are domain experts and we’re all (hopefully) trying to learn. Now, do you know whether ID cards will work with the proposed German system for e2e online ID verification? My understanding from comments was that it doesn’t, and providers are free to require the app-based version. In Sweden we have an app-based system now (BankID), and afaik there are no alternatives that work reliably. You have to buy an American phone every few years to participate in basic societal functions. However, the government is ”looking into” decoupling digital identity from (1) banks and (2) mandatory hardware manufacturers (iOS/Android).
aenis 6mo ago
True, but its really hard to name a family of commercial devices with security features in hardware, including serious security features, which were not eventually hacked. Worse still, for new mainstream devices that are believed to be safe the state sponsored actors will likely operate unpublished exploits, and will exploit the misplaced faith people and judiciary will put in device attestation. I dont think the very likeable people who worked on Pegasus found themselves respectable jobs - they are likely still selling that sophisticated crap to all authoritarian regimes.
EmbarrassedHelp 6mo ago
The German version of the eDIAS app should be completely banned from being used for age verification, if they wish to continue the project. Otherwise it effectively bans you from a sizeable portion of the internet, unless you accept unacceptable privacy violations.
selfhoster11 6mo ago
No. I reject this framing. It is none of anybody's business how "secure" my device ever is. A smartphone is a piece of electronics, and not a tamper evident identity device.

applfanboysbgon 6mo ago

Comparing being able to run the hardware and software of your choice to "wanting a passport in a different color or whatever" is so completely fucked, and it's beyond insane as a justification for giving two American tech companies with a well established track record for doing evil control over your citizens' ID. The world has gone absolutely mad, what the fuck am I even witnessing? It is quite literally becoming 1984 in front of my eyes, with people complying completely voluntarily and openly advocating for it, not even a threat of force to make it happen.

Avamander 6mo ago
You keep lashing out at people in this thread. Demanding full control over something like an ID will fundamentally not happen. The same way you won't have full control over the way passports or paper bills are made. Take for example the expectation that some poor fool's ID can't be cloned and reused by malicious actors - full control directly contradicts that. It will not and must not be possible.
- applfanboysbgon 6mo ago
  We don't need 'full control' over an ID. We need the status quo, where we have mostly have control over our devices, and where paper IDs are still the foundation of society. Things are fine the way they are. There are problems, sure, but no problems that are made better by an all-encompassing surveillance state. If I am lashing out, it is because this is perhaps the most dangerous thing I've ever seen proposed, and it is deeply distressing how people are sleepwalking into it. To be honest, if I were German, I would probably just kill myself the day I was legally mandated by my government to register my identity with Google. That might sound hyperbolic, but I'm really not kidding. I have lived with privacy, anonymity, and freedom for all of my life. If the future of this world is one where the government and Google have complete control over every single thing you do, I'd rather die having lived a satisfying life than witness the horrors that are to come.
  - tzs 6mo ago
    How do you use your paper ID to to prove identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away whom you are conducting an online transaction with?
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - lejalv 6mo ago
      It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary. Proof: things mostly work now without all the surveillance state shenanigans. More proof: humans have lived full and fulfilling lives without "proving identity or age or citizenship to someone hundreds of kilometers away"
      - Avamander 6mo ago
        > It's not that important to be able to do that. You have been educated to trade your freedom for that kind of convenience, but it is not necessary. It's important enough that people do so without any eID, using methods both more invasive and less reliable. Gas bills, document photos, having to take videos and pictures of yourself. Humans have lived in caves and died of preventable diseases, it doesn't mean it's a better way of living.
  - integralid 6mo ago
    >To be honest, if I were German, I would probably just kill myself the day I was legally mandated by my government to register my identity with Google. That might sound hyperbolic, but I'm really not kidding. This is honestly not a good argument - it makes you sound desperate and puts in doubt your mental stability. I don't think you actually have mental problems, I just mean this this kind of argument comes off bad. Also nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have to own a digital ID. It just makes things easier, because you can sign things over the internet, or present your phone instead of your plastic ID. Both things already have alternatives (qualified signatures and regular physical ID), so no immediate harm is being done. Don't get me wrong, I am personally anti bigtech, I try to degoogle as much as possible, and I find the thought of my government coercing me to use google/apple duopoly repulsive. I dislike that, but using phones (instead of for example dedicated hardware) IS pragmatic, and you are not forced to do anything. Sent from my pixel phone.
viktorcode 6mo ago
> with a well established track record for doing evil control Can you please elaborate on that record?
- applfanboysbgon 6mo ago
  The clauses are [with a well established track record for doing evil] [control over your citizens' ID], if that's not clear. I wonder from where your quote cut off if my sentence was misunderstood. As to the well-established track record of doing evil... gestures broadly everything? Google in particular has built an empire on stripping away people's privacy, and they regularly ruin people's livelihood by eg. shutting down Youtube accounts incorrectly with automated systems and no way of ever reaching a human for support unless you're famous enough to make it a PR issue. Apple is the same, just recently with a thread on HN lamenting that Apple was destroying their business because they revoked their dev license, or in other words, a private company unilaterally revoked the ability of a business to create mobile software for billions of devices. And now we want to give them control over our IDs? ????????????????????????
- fsflover 6mo ago
  Search for "Google" in my favorite submissions on HN.

RandomGerm4n 6mo ago

Users have the right to modify any app running on their own device. Software security should never depend on the user having no control over their own device. Smartphones are essentially just regular computers, and on them you can use a debugger and do whatever you want. Viewing smartphones as closed systems like game consoles where you need the manufacturer’s permission for everything only leads us into the dystopia that Richard Stallman described as early as 1997 in his short story "The Right to Read"

Avamander 6mo ago
Once SafetyNet was brought to Android a decade ago the tendency has been clear - these freedoms are going to be restricted heavily. Because how do you make sure it's the user who does those modifications, willingly and well-informed? That it's not a malicious actor, not an user getting socially engineered or phished? Incredibly difficult compared to the current alternative. If it's not a software root of trust that provides an attestable environment like Android or iOS. It's going to be a hardware root of trust that provides an attestable hardware environment, like SGX. I can predict no other practical avenue taken. Unless the orangutan really forces a demonstration on how untrustworthy these environments can be and a lot of money and effort is spent.
- 649028763 6mo ago
  [dead]
- lvass 6mo ago
  You can maybe, trust the user to handle it's own certificate in their own devices? Though I admit requiring attestation is probably a good default.
  - Avamander 6mo ago
    One important feature of a legal ID is that it's hard to copy, so attestation from the hardware storage would have to be basically mandatory. But yeah, the user could have a choice to this extent.

GranPC 6mo ago

Well, in that case, if they want full control and attestation yadda yadda, I'm fine with them shipping me a device they fully control exclusively for use of this stuff. But if we're talking about my smartphone that I paid for with my money that I worked for, I will do whatever I damn please with it. So I guess that means eIDAS will be inaccessible to me.

izacus 6mo ago
That device is a personal ID card with a chip. Many EU countries issue them.
- klabb3 6mo ago
  Why not just have the Secure Enclave in the ID card and use NFC to communicate with it? Think about it, you literally have dozens of computers between you and the provider. Routers, middleboxes, load balancers, servers etc, all insecure or untrusted, but somehow my device needs to have their special rootkit and hardware DRM. A separate device that can be provisioned with ID is the least to ask. If the government doesn’t trust me with my device, fine, but then return the favor - I don’t trust them either. Both governments and corporations that are gonna use this have long track records of invasive, often illegal spying - whereas my track record is letting people mind their own business.
  - izacus 6mo ago
    This is exactly what the ID cards I'm talking about are. You tap them to the phone or a desktop reader and it works. You just invented something that already exists. eIDAS just takes this one step further and gives you an option to not have to carry your card with you. But if you refuse to have an attested phone, then you pay those 20EUR to get the ID card (which you probably need for other uses as well) and move on with your life.
    - klabb3 6mo ago
      > This is exactly what the ID cards I'm talking about are. You tap them to the phone or a desktop reader and it works. You just invented something that already exists. Great, thanks for clarifying. Please be mindful not everyone are domain experts and we’re all (hopefully) trying to learn. Now, do you know whether ID cards will work with the proposed German system for e2e online ID verification? My understanding from comments was that it doesn’t, and providers are free to require the app-based version. In Sweden we have an app-based system now (BankID), and afaik there are no alternatives that work reliably. You have to buy an American phone every few years to participate in basic societal functions. However, the government is ”looking into” decoupling digital identity from (1) banks and (2) mandatory hardware manufacturers (iOS/Android).

aenis 6mo ago

True, but its really hard to name a family of commercial devices with security features in hardware, including serious security features, which were not eventually hacked. Worse still, for new mainstream devices that are believed to be safe the state sponsored actors will likely operate unpublished exploits, and will exploit the misplaced faith people and judiciary will put in device attestation. I dont think the very likeable people who worked on Pegasus found themselves respectable jobs - they are likely still selling that sophisticated crap to all authoritarian regimes.

EmbarrassedHelp 6mo ago

The German version of the eDIAS app should be completely banned from being used for age verification, if they wish to continue the project. Otherwise it effectively bans you from a sizeable portion of the internet, unless you accept unacceptable privacy violations.

selfhoster11 6mo ago

No. I reject this framing. It is none of anybody's business how "secure" my device ever is. A smartphone is a piece of electronics, and not a tamper evident identity device.