←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
zmmmmm ◴[] No.45088995[source]
> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware

It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your own operating system because it's not in Netflix's financial interest for you to do so. Or your banks, or your government. They all benefit from you not having control, so you can't.

This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. I should be able to opt into all this if I want more security, but it can't be mandatory. However all of these things are not technical, they are principles and rights that we have to argue for.

replies(38): >>45089166 #>>45089202 #>>45089284 #>>45089333 #>>45089427 #>>45089429 #>>45089435 #>>45089489 #>>45089510 #>>45089540 #>>45089671 #>>45089713 #>>45089774 #>>45089807 #>>45089822 #>>45089863 #>>45089898 #>>45089923 #>>45089969 #>>45090089 #>>45090324 #>>45090433 #>>45090512 #>>45090536 #>>45090578 #>>45090671 #>>45090714 #>>45090902 #>>45090919 #>>45091186 #>>45091432 #>>45091515 #>>45091629 #>>45091710 #>>45092238 #>>45092325 #>>45092412 #>>45092773 #
JeremyNT ◴[] No.45089284[source]
This is the crux of the matter.

Maybe conceptually you will be able to run some kind of open operating system with your own code, but it will be unable to access software or services provided by corporate or governmental entities.

This has been obvious for some time, and as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear.

Pleading to the government definitely can't save us now though, because they want the control just as much as the corporations do.

replies(5): >>45089321 #>>45089323 #>>45089975 #>>45090561 #>>45090592 #
reddalo ◴[] No.45089975[source]
> as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear

That's why I'm 100% against passkeys. I'll never use them and I'll make sure nobody I know does.

They're just a lock-in mechanism.

replies(3): >>45090207 #>>45090270 #>>45090402 #
lucideer ◴[] No.45090270[source]
"Passkeys" is a new brand name slapped on an older open, interoperable technology, so it's difficult for me to be "against passkeys" as they haven't fundamentally changed anything.

Before the branding they were known as FIDO2 "discoverable credentials" or "resident keys".

Two things have changed with the rebrand:

1. A lot of platforms are adopting support for FIDO2 resident keys. This is good actually.

2. A lot of large companies have set themselves up as providers of FIDO2 resident keys without export or migration mechanisms. This is the vendor lock-in part (no export feature), but it's not a feature of the underlying tech itself.

Fwiw FIDO are actively working on some standard for exporting/importing keys so that's something.

If you want to use passkeys without lockin, just use Bitwarden or KeepPassXC - they all have full support. Or you can also store a limited number of passkeys on your FIDO2-compatible hardware key like Yubikey or the open-source Nitrokeys.

replies(3): >>45090466 #>>45090951 #>>45091194 #
1. ori_b ◴[] No.45091194[source]
Passkeys would be wonderful if they removed remote attestation. Remote attestation is still there, so I will not touch it.
replies(1): >>45091311 #
2. lucideer ◴[] No.45091311[source]
Passkeys would be better without remote attestation, no doubt. But remote attestation is not only optional but also, passkeys are not a prerequisite for requiring remote attestation.

Lots of services that don't support passkeys currently require remote attestation. Boycotting passkeys (an open, possibly beneficial tech that doesn't require remote attestation) will not prevent bad actors from requiring remote attestation (with or without passkeys).

replies(1): >>45091320 #
3. ori_b ◴[] No.45091320[source]
Agreed. Boycotting them is necessary but insufficient.
replies(1): >>45095473 #
4. lucideer ◴[] No.45095473{3}[source]
No, boycotting them is entirely orthogonal to the issue. Passkeys have no role in ensuring that we do or don't rely on remote attestation - they're two totally separate considerations.

Passkeys have many benefits over current alternatives for auth, & the inclusion of remote attestation doesn't make them worse than current auth because all current auth can be coupled to remote attestation.

Continue to oppose remote attestation but do use Passkeys. They're a massive improvement.