It's all about who owns the keys and who trusts those keys. If you don't have the keys to "your" computer, then you don't own that computer, you're just renting it from the corporation.

And even if our own keys could be used, who's going to trust those attestations? Nobody. They will trust Google's keys, Microsoft's keys, Apple's keys. Not ours.

Yeah same as TPM and Secureboot. They can improve your own personal security (and thereby privacy) drastically, but it has to be controlled by the user.

I am doing this now. I have had a carrier locked iPhone SE 2020 which I only use on Wi-Fi for over five years now. I also have an android phone and I don't install any banking apps on my android phone.

I think you've misunderstood. It's not an app problem. The problem is that it makes Free Software OSes unviable. The copy of Android you compile and install yourself - or your copy of desktop Linux where you upgraded the kernel yourself - will never pass remote attestation, and it gives both the attestation provider and software that checks attestation the ability to unilaterally shut out any OS they like with no workaround, even those that do pass attestation.

In a world of deeply untrustworthy Big Tech, and trend of governments, banks and other basic services needed to exist in society relying on apps and in the future, websites that use remote attestation, that is very troubling.

There are better ways of dealing with the bad actors problem, but Big Tech has chosen violence.

Then why can't we install whatever we want on "our" devices?

> The UK has a digital ID requirement which is required for you to be employed in the UK.

That's untrue.

There was a strong push towards the digital ID from the current administration, but it was abandoned 6 months ago.

What you likely mixed up with digital ID is the old digital visa scheme, mandatory for all non-UK citizens to prove right to work.

Re: your app list: looks a little bit eclectic, so it's worth mentioning most of the apps don't ban GoS specifically, but enforce Google play strong or device integrity pass, which GoS doesn't pass.

Some trip on some exploit protections, like secure app spawning, but these can be turned off per app in the latest releases based on Android 17.

GrapheneOS and others should have lobbyists or rather lawyers and lawmakers to fight for using secure systems to mandatory be allowed for these. Sure, there must be some type of OS guarantee, but that should not be exclusive to Google and Apple. And indeed browsers with otp/authn devices (not one per service but yubi/thetis type of thing as those can be made sovereign for a large part); when an OS is not allowed, the browser and app should be mandatory allowed with such a device as that is, actually, more secure than the original device as it is an external encryption and encryption key source the hacker cannot reach.

This sucks. The solution is to buy the cheepest iPhone and use it just for the goverment services.

> The UK has a digital ID requirement which is required for you to be employed in the UK.

False

In fact I can't think of a single Government service or legal requirement that requires a smartphone in the UK.

In the past year I have applied for a passport, applied for benefits, opened a bank account, passed through border control, filed a company tax return, closed down a business, helped someone else claim for benefits, made police reports, filed a case with the small claims court, paid my council tax, received an incone tax refund, travelled on public transport extensively, hired a car.

All had alternatives as far as I can recall.

Quite a few were done online just with a computer and optionally a phone number

And based on prior discussions here I have to point out that "require" doesn't mean "ok but the alternative is kind of inconvenient"

It's mostly the app. Nothing come close to apple notes or reminder for instance.

Even safari... On Android, you get chromium that doesn't have any extension or Firefox that has incredibly frustrating UI and doesn't work well on some website.

Obsidian might be even greater for notes. Looks beautiful, and it's super immersive on OLED especially. Worth trying for sure.

Tap to scroll might be possible to get also. Haven't felt need for it when it takes a few regular scrolls anyway.

If you are referring to GrapheneOS, there is nothing that GrapheneOS offers or advertises that "explicitly protects criminals".

GrapheneOS is not for criminals, its not aimed at criminals, its not designed for criminals. Not implicitly or explicitly.

Your assumption that "criminals" are doing something morally wrong is fundamentally flawed. Civil rights activists were criminals, as were suffragettes, and the people who protected Jews in Nazi Germany, and gay or trans people just existing in countries where that isn't allowed. All criminals. Law enforcement isn't even always carrying out the law, as we've seen with ICE arresting, assaulting, searching, deporting people on no other basis than their skin color.

Democracy dies when people can't protest. When they are under constant surveillance, afraid of being singled out by the government intelligence gathering mechanisms. Unable to speak out about injustice, organise and engage in healthy counter culture.

Look at Russia, look at China. Don't imagine that giving your own government and law enforcement the same tools of surveillance and oppression will have a different outcome.

How does it protect trafficers especially? Does it have some extra trafficking features? Does it unlock additional capabilities if you're a criminal? Or maybe it just protects everyone?

Do you believe window curtains should be legal? Should it be legal for a TV to not include a microphone and require an internet connection (as recent LG TVs do)?

In the era before the advent of mass digital surveillance, it was well understood that there are many different ways to fight crime. Now every time I see this conversation being had, it's treated as if keeping any amount of privacy beyond what you personally find acceptable is tantamount to endorsing the existence of human traffickers. Warrantless spread-shot digital surveillance is now often treated as essential.

I have a question for you. Why don't you advocate for more surveillance? The more active and widespread the surveillance, the more criminals can be caught. If you think it's not entirely practical, just embark on a thought experiment with me -- assume it would be practical. Would you do it? Would you have everyone be under perfect surveillance 24/7 in order to catch every criminal? Let's call this stance surveillance maximalism.

If you agree with surveillance maximalism, then we're just very different people and I don't think we can find common ground. I hope we can live peacefully in different countries with different laws that suit our preferences.

If you disagree with surveillance maximalism, then why is your arbitrary tradeoff so good? It's not obvious why it's better. You are assuming the moral high ground, but you're also doing the same thing you're accusing me of -- you're accepting some amount of traffickers existing by not being a surveillance maximalist.

By adopting this moral high ground, the discourse is kept at a shallow level. We talk less about which surveillance measures are actually effective or not, what has happened to crime rates over time, what is the context in which crime occurs, what are the negative consequences of undermining privacy, what are the negative consequences of mass surveillance etc. Instead we waste our time and energy on cheap moral opprobrium.

You forgot terrorists on your usual list of reasons e2e is bad. Technology will always be used for bad and good, but there are far more people using it for good than bad.