| ▲ | dathinab 10 hours ago |
| > Why was this decision ever made? because it wasn't made the decision which was made was having a digital ID wallet, that this needs hardware attestation (or something comparable) is somewhat of a direct consequence of existing laws/regulations regarding making IDs forgery safe it also is a phone only application the huge huge majority of phones runs Googled Android/iOS, so you support them if there where a relevant 3rd party competition it would (most likely) supported it, too going back to the "the president .. shut down .." argument: The US can shut down >90% of all smart phones used in the EU. I don't think the US being able to shut down something which in the end is fundamentally just a minor convenience feature is making much of a difference here. But I also think that whole identity wallet (the regulations behind it) is approaching things from the wrong direction, carrying a credit card sized ID with you isn't really a problem or very inconvenient. So instead of having the whole attestation nonsense it would be more practical to simply not have attestation and in turn allow the digital ID only for usage where the damage it can cause is quite limited. Especially given that device attestation systems have a long history of being circumvented... As a side note this whole app is distinct from the "use you ID with through your phone/NFC with applications" thing many EU countries have, through that solutions also tend to have attestation issues in most cases. But again most relevant use-case of it can be done just fine, without the security level attestation tries to provide, if approached pragmatically. |
|
| ▲ | reactordev 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Have you seen our President? Minor conveniences are what trigger him into launching full blown DOJ investigations, wars, and economic disaster. If he realizes he can just "turn off" the EU, oh, he will threaten that on Truth Social tonight in a rant about how they should make a deal or else. |
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd like to see if he can be convinced into going after Google and effectively stopping remote attestation. One can certainly dream... | |
| ▲ | like_any_other 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | An open threat like that would be the best case scenario, as it would (hopefully) cause a reaction in EU countries trying to get rid of this yoke. Instead usually it happens through backroom dealings, or just the services being a nuisance to competitors while being helpful to friendly companies, and thus the target country is drained of its resources and economic independence, slow enough to not provoke retaliation. With the exception of the current US administration, hostile countries and corporations try to appear non-hostile when possible. | |
| ▲ | EchoReflection 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | nickburns 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Friendly advice: please don't capitalize random common nouns like the president does. It's a marker of one's affinity toward precision (among other things). | | |
| ▲ | danaw 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | you're being this pedantic about someone capitalizing "President"? | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not a proper noun, and this is HN: pedantry is par. “The president of Xyz” capitalizes the X in Xyz(pn) but not the P in president(n). However, the P in President(pn) is capitalized when it’s a Title suffixed to a Name - but that varies per country by what they title their president-equivalent locally and isn’t always translated, while the concept-slash-role label of ‘president’ in English generally does not (and is often used interchangeably, albeit somewhat wrongly, for ‘monarch’ and other such single-person executive-leader roles). (That we use the same spelling for both title and concept is annoying, as usual :) | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It’s not a proper noun The President, within this context, identifies a single entity. As such, it is a proper noun. Analogy: there are many continents. But if we're discussing Brexit, the Continent is a proper noun. I don't think it's incorrect to not capitalise. But it's certainly gramatically okay, and not in the same bucket as The Nutters who capitalise Random words it Looks like Legalese. | | |
| ▲ | nickburns 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The President, within this context, identifies a single entity. As such, it is a proper noun Yeah, no. You're just making things up to suit your position like the president does. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > no. You're just making things ...this isn't a counterargument. I can similarly assert you're justing making stuff up, which isn't untrue, either way, since we're talking about language, a wholly made-up enterprise. What's your contention that the President, within the context of the American presidency, does not refer to a single entity? Is this a preference? Or something you actually believe is incorrect? | | |
| ▲ | nickburns 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You got the impression I was trying to argue with you? Go look it up like the president doesn't. I'm personally not a recognized grammar authority. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was just talking about this today: I have an internal convention to not capitalise LLMs when talking about them as if they were people; so claude is not capitalised, and the internal LLM-based service agent we're building, rex, is not capitalised. I realise this breaks the capitalisation of proper nouns; claude is a name and therefore a proper noun and therefore should be capitalised. But I like that there's a signal in here that the thing I'm talking about is not a person and so we don't capitalise the name (I realise that cities or companies or other things that we capitalise are also not people). Digression, but then so was the entire discussion on capitalisation. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the thing I'm talking about is not a person Countries, companies, religions; hell, planets and galaxies–none of these are sapient. Yet we capitalise them. I'll go out into the deep end for a second with a hypothesis: I think we capitalise because it makes printed text easier to scan. The words you need to spend more time on are capitalised because they aren't ones you can just roll through. This is also why the nutter affect of capitalising random words is so distracting–it drives attention to non-standard words that are, with minimum thought, being used perfectly standardly. | | |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I completely agree with your hypothesis. And the ridiculous effect that Trump's random capitalisation has, both of making his text (even) harder to read, and of giving the impression that he doesn't actually know how to write English. My additional hypothesis is that capitalisation accords respect, something along the lines of "this is a thing apart, something with a name, so we capitalise it". Not capitalising an actual human's name would seem disrespectful to me. | |
| ▲ | nickburns 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You clearly speak only one language. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | President is a title here so Capitalization is correct use. That last one wasn’t. To be pedantic, we all know which one I was referring to. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They’re trolling. | | |
| ▲ | nickburns 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you’re not, and I say this in good faith, take your own advice around your tone. Making assumptions about other people, and then doubling down when they correct you, comes across as a kind of horrible I doubt you truly are. | | |
| ▲ | nickburns 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I say this in good faith: oh, stop. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | does it piss you off that punct isn't used properly anymore and that, commas, can happen anywhere? Are you one of those who still has use for em-dash? | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right, you’re a troll. Something, something Dwight Macdonald about parody needing to be smart and not bitter. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nickburns 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The word 'president' being a potential title doesn't make it a title nor a proper noun in all contexts. Your bio contains comma splice, by the way. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nickburns 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. But mostly just because it's in reference to this particular president who's a dullard and displays it regularly in this particular way. |
| |
| ▲ | yawaramin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does 'marker of affinity toward precision' mean? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | josephcsible 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > having a digital ID wallet, that this needs hardware attestation (or something comparable) is somewhat of a direct consequence of existing laws/regulations regarding making IDs forgery safe How do you figure? Isn't just having the digital ID be signed by a key belonging to the issuer good enough for that? |
| |
| ▲ | rahkiin 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think they are saying the signed ID can be copied to another device. Unless such ID needs to have acces to some TPM that can be trusted, which likely requires then specific trusted hardware and software | | |
| ▲ | josephcsible 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think they are saying the signed ID can be copied to another device. But that's not what a forgery is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jcgrillo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If something is actually important, don't put it on a computer. Don't let a computer be in the critical path of anything that actually matters. It's really quite simple. Even before "AI" this technology was not reliable enough for serious, important things--systems that need to be maintainable in adverse conditions (battle damage, etc), systems where failure is not an option (proving your identity, proving your children are yours, ...). If you care about your car, truck, tractor, or dozer being maintainable and reliable, don't get one with a computer in it. Until we can figure out how to make these things reliable and maintainable they're not to be trusted. |
| |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I feel like we need a war or something to show everyone how brittle we've built everything, and how unnecessary it all is. |
|
|
| ▲ | izacus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Can you show an example of defeating hardware attestation? It would be useful for many 3rd party ROM users. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Gaming consoles typically have hardware attestation (as in verified software on verified hardware, sealed), and it has been broken many times in the past. | | | |
| ▲ | dathinab 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | most times it's done by (reliably re-)rooting a attested phone in a way which bypasses detection of the attestation system so not really useful for 3rd party ROMs | | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Quite useful for scammers, though, which is why this is so irritating with regards to digital IDs. |
|
|
