4 ms·

You're basically arguing for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing . You're saying that the manufactur

by nayuki 2y ago

You're basically arguing for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing . You're saying that the manufacturer should have more power than the consumer, that the consumer cannot run arbitrary code, that the consumer cannot examine and disassemble the manufacturer's code. Even if the device is unmodified, you can still spoof GPS signals by generating them in a box: https://www.reddit.com/r/electronics/comments/4unzp2/cheating_in_pok%C3%A9mon_go_using_a_signal_generator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/electronics/comments/4unzp2/cheatin... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mC71c6zRUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mC71c6zRUE . That's why I think "trusted computing" is pointless.

Zak 2y ago
We basically already have that on smartphones. Both Android and iOS have remote attestation, and a significant number of apps use it to refuse to run on devices with anything but an unmodified first-party OS. I was surprised there wasn't a bigger outcry over it in the tech world.
- aftbit 2y ago
  As someone who habitually roots my Android phones, I'm always somewhat annoyed when I can't use features like tap-to-pay, but I'm really annoyed when apps refuse to start, especially when they are for things like McDonalds. I shouldn't need to have a known-trusted operating system to buy a burger.
  - Zak 2y ago
    Be sure to give them 1-star reviews. I've found that the Play Integrity Fix module for Magisk usually solves it, though there are a couple exceptions. They still earn a negative review for the attempt.
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    > I shouldn't need to have a known-trusted operating system to buy a burger. That's for the app developer to decide, no?
    - Zak 2y ago
      Why should it be? It's a recent change that app developers have the ability to know, and represents a massive transfer of power away from users to app developers and OS vendors.
    - aftbit 2y ago
      Well in a purely laissez-faire sense, of course. They can legally decide to refuse service to anyone for any reason, with a few narrowly protected exceptions like race. But that doesn't mean they _should_. They could choose to refuse service to anyone who isn't wearing a tux, or anyone who refuses to sing the national anthem, but they shouldn't do that either, and not just for the obvious capitalist reason that those actions would cost them business. I guess what I'm saying is that I see some degree of reasonableness in a bank or a mobile game enforcing some Trusted Computing paradigms, even if I don't like it. Banks have to worry about real money fraud, and games worry about cheating. In my opinion, the privacy and user agency tradeoffs are not worth it, but I see why they do it. For someone like McDonald's though, I just do not see any reason that they'd need this level of trust in their customers. Buying fast food is historically a very low trust, transactional deal. Why does McD need to be able to ensure my device integrity to offer this? Starbucks doesn't need to do so, and they have a loyalty program with stored value and payment reload in the app.
      - lmz 2y ago
        Does the McD app have saved payment credentials?
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        I doubt it (if McDonalds' saves credentials, it's likely some sort of token on their servers, rather than in plaintext on the app), but that wouldn't change anything, as I am okay with running an app which saves payment credentials, on my rooted phone. Indeed, I'm okay with doing whatever I want, within standards of human decency, with my owned device and my owned bits therein. I don't see where McDonalds' desires factor into what I do with either. Their technical capability of imposing control over how people use their own devices isn't self-justified, or justified at all.
- xamde 2y ago
  There is also the base band processor, which is completely locked away from user access. Running a wireless network would be much harder, if users could access it. So I guess freedom and working tech are trade-offs in this case.

by nayuki 2y ago

Zak 2y ago

We basically already have that on smartphones. Both Android and iOS have remote attestation, and a significant number of apps use it to refuse to run on devices with anything but an unmodified first-party OS. I was surprised there wasn't a bigger outcry over it in the tech world.

aftbit 2y ago
As someone who habitually roots my Android phones, I'm always somewhat annoyed when I can't use features like tap-to-pay, but I'm really annoyed when apps refuse to start, especially when they are for things like McDonalds. I shouldn't need to have a known-trusted operating system to buy a burger.
- Zak 2y ago
  Be sure to give them 1-star reviews. I've found that the Play Integrity Fix module for Magisk usually solves it, though there are a couple exceptions. They still earn a negative review for the attempt.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  > I shouldn't need to have a known-trusted operating system to buy a burger. That's for the app developer to decide, no?
  - Zak 2y ago
    Why should it be? It's a recent change that app developers have the ability to know, and represents a massive transfer of power away from users to app developers and OS vendors.
  - aftbit 2y ago
    Well in a purely laissez-faire sense, of course. They can legally decide to refuse service to anyone for any reason, with a few narrowly protected exceptions like race. But that doesn't mean they _should_. They could choose to refuse service to anyone who isn't wearing a tux, or anyone who refuses to sing the national anthem, but they shouldn't do that either, and not just for the obvious capitalist reason that those actions would cost them business. I guess what I'm saying is that I see some degree of reasonableness in a bank or a mobile game enforcing some Trusted Computing paradigms, even if I don't like it. Banks have to worry about real money fraud, and games worry about cheating. In my opinion, the privacy and user agency tradeoffs are not worth it, but I see why they do it. For someone like McDonald's though, I just do not see any reason that they'd need this level of trust in their customers. Buying fast food is historically a very low trust, transactional deal. Why does McD need to be able to ensure my device integrity to offer this? Starbucks doesn't need to do so, and they have a loyalty program with stored value and payment reload in the app.
    - lmz 2y ago
      Does the McD app have saved payment credentials?
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        I doubt it (if McDonalds' saves credentials, it's likely some sort of token on their servers, rather than in plaintext on the app), but that wouldn't change anything, as I am okay with running an app which saves payment credentials, on my rooted phone. Indeed, I'm okay with doing whatever I want, within standards of human decency, with my owned device and my owned bits therein. I don't see where McDonalds' desires factor into what I do with either. Their technical capability of imposing control over how people use their own devices isn't self-justified, or justified at all.
xamde 2y ago
There is also the base band processor, which is completely locked away from user access. Running a wireless network would be much harder, if users could access it. So I guess freedom and working tech are trade-offs in this case.