4 ms·

This idea that protecting users is worth the cost of giving up your ownership rights is fallacious. Protecting 1 million grannies is an entirely different risk

This idea that protecting users is worth the cost of giving up your ownership rights is fallacious. Protecting 1 million grannies is an entirely different risk class than the security implications of stopping everyone from using their devices as they see fit. Protecting 1 million grannies means everyone loses ability to install apps that: -allow encrypted chat -allow use of privacy respecting software -download art/games/entertainment that is deemed inappropriate to unelected parties -use software to organize protests and track agents of hostile governments -download software that opposes monopolistic holds of controlling parties Using Linux is also not a real choice. To access my bank and health services in my country, I require a mobile device that is remote attested by either Apple or Google which are American countries. Hell, it's becoming closer to reality that playing online video games requires remote attestation either to "prevent" cheating or for age verification. Thus the risk widens to the sovereign control a nation has over its own services. A US president could attempt to force Google and Apple to shutoff citizen access of banks and health services of an entire nation. Merely the threat could give them leverage in any sort of negotiations they might be in. For some nations in the future, the controlling nation may be China I imagine. I think the real regulatory solution here is to break up monopoly practices. While the EU's DMA is all well and good in some ways, the EU is also pushing Chat Control... In a more fragmented market it becomes impossible for a bank or health service to mandate specific devices for access (they lose potential customers) so you could theoretically move to a device that doesn't do draconian style remote attestation that breaks if you go off the ranch. We need more surgically precise regulatory tools than sweeping legislation that would keep using alternatives like Linux or FreeBSD or whatever actually viable. It also makes it much harder for that same legislative body to enforce insane ideas like Chat Control. The answer is not protect users from themselves. The answer is more freedom, with a legal framework that helps all users have more choices while helping victims acquire restitution.

jolmg 11mo ago
> To access [...] health services in my country, I require a mobile device that is remote attested by either Apple or Google I knew of banks, but how is it that health services need remote attested mobile devices? Do clinics not support setting appointments through calls anymore, or what?
- fsf4alltemp 11mo ago
  In my country, the same verification service is used to access banks, health services (private and public), taxes, and even verify online retail purchases. This verification app on Android requires Play Integrity on first time activation so fresh installs of something like GrapheneOS will not let you use the app. It's still currently possible to use a hardware token alternative to the app. It is only getting less convenient and possible to opt out of the digital verification systems even if there's technically still workarounds. In the past, even when such verification systems existed, they were less user constricting (no requirements on remote attestation for example). I believe if we look at the past compared to now, and then extrapolate towards the future, without proper action, we will keep slipping down the slope.
  - ryandrake 11mo ago
    I see all of these "in my country, we need a phone to do X" posts, and while I believe them, I feel like they always leave out key information. I'd also like to know: What actually happens when the customer does not have a phone? Do you just never get healthcare? Do you just never bank? Surely there are (perhaps inconvenient) alternatives that people without phones can use. The national government doesn't just let its citizens slide into some healthcare-less, unbanked purgatory simply for not having a phone. What is the real, full picture? As someone in the USA, I could toss my phone in the dumpster forever and still live my life pretty much as I live it today. I might have to make a few minor sacrifices, but I'm grateful we still have that choice here.
    - gvurrdon 11mo ago
      Recently, I was referred by my family physician to a healthcare provider. That provider required a mobile phone number for registration. I emailed them to complain about this and their reply was that if I did not have a mobile I should contact the referring medical practice to find an alternative means of treatment. I did, and their response was that I should take it up with the provider. But this is, of course, just one anecdote. I would also be interested in seeing more information.
    - 11mo ago
leothecool 11mo ago
When they say users need to be protected they don't mean the people. They mean the database record.
- fsf4alltemp 11mo ago
  Haha, it's a bit sad when the record's get compromised it's still the people's problem. :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
lejalv 11mo ago
> A US president could attempt to force Google and Apple to shutoff citizen access of banks and health services of an entire nation. Merely the threat could give them leverage in any sort of negotiations they might be in This. We can’t anymore say to ourselves “but surely a US president would never do that”? Reference: recent tirades at Canada, Spain, Colombia, Ukraine, ...
- vetrom 11mo ago
  We already have the UK intimating they can exercise parliamentary supremacy over American citizens, so we already have this today. (Reference: https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/) Without limitations on authority and control, I worry more that the world will devolve into a multilateral legal hellscape, even moreso than exists today. Given how much is dependent on software, you are going to have the governments of pretty much any country with multinational exposure trying this in the next 10 years if recent UK and EU developments are any indicator.

jolmg 11mo ago

> To access [...] health services in my country, I require a mobile device that is remote attested by either Apple or Google I knew of banks, but how is it that health services need remote attested mobile devices? Do clinics not support setting appointments through calls anymore, or what?

fsf4alltemp 11mo ago
In my country, the same verification service is used to access banks, health services (private and public), taxes, and even verify online retail purchases. This verification app on Android requires Play Integrity on first time activation so fresh installs of something like GrapheneOS will not let you use the app. It's still currently possible to use a hardware token alternative to the app. It is only getting less convenient and possible to opt out of the digital verification systems even if there's technically still workarounds. In the past, even when such verification systems existed, they were less user constricting (no requirements on remote attestation for example). I believe if we look at the past compared to now, and then extrapolate towards the future, without proper action, we will keep slipping down the slope.
- ryandrake 11mo ago
  I see all of these "in my country, we need a phone to do X" posts, and while I believe them, I feel like they always leave out key information. I'd also like to know: What actually happens when the customer does not have a phone? Do you just never get healthcare? Do you just never bank? Surely there are (perhaps inconvenient) alternatives that people without phones can use. The national government doesn't just let its citizens slide into some healthcare-less, unbanked purgatory simply for not having a phone. What is the real, full picture? As someone in the USA, I could toss my phone in the dumpster forever and still live my life pretty much as I live it today. I might have to make a few minor sacrifices, but I'm grateful we still have that choice here.
  - gvurrdon 11mo ago
    Recently, I was referred by my family physician to a healthcare provider. That provider required a mobile phone number for registration. I emailed them to complain about this and their reply was that if I did not have a mobile I should contact the referring medical practice to find an alternative means of treatment. I did, and their response was that I should take it up with the provider. But this is, of course, just one anecdote. I would also be interested in seeing more information.
  - 11mo ago

leothecool 11mo ago

When they say users need to be protected they don't mean the people. They mean the database record.

fsf4alltemp 11mo ago
Haha, it's a bit sad when the record's get compromised it's still the people's problem. :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

lejalv 11mo ago

> A US president could attempt to force Google and Apple to shutoff citizen access of banks and health services of an entire nation. Merely the threat could give them leverage in any sort of negotiations they might be in This. We can’t anymore say to ourselves “but surely a US president would never do that”? Reference: recent tirades at Canada, Spain, Colombia, Ukraine, ...

vetrom 11mo ago
We already have the UK intimating they can exercise parliamentary supremacy over American citizens, so we already have this today. (Reference: https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/) Without limitations on authority and control, I worry more that the world will devolve into a multilateral legal hellscape, even moreso than exists today. Given how much is dependent on software, you are going to have the governments of pretty much any country with multinational exposure trying this in the next 10 years if recent UK and EU developments are any indicator.