Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German implementation of eIDAS will require an Apple/Google account to function

bmi.usercontent.opencode.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–674 of 674 posts

Re: German implementation of eIDAS will require an Apple/Google account to function

#671

Post by illiac786 »

subscribed wrote: post #670
illiac786 wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the parent wrote though. And why is it so bad that they start with a smaller subset of feature and target the 99% of the population using either google or apple?

This is a misleading way to put it. Re: Android. Goggle can supports AOSP attestation like any other vendor who wants to support it. They invented it. So instead of immediately locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method, I'd developers could go the vendor agnostic way, but consciously decided not to. It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out e…

You are misleading in fact, you use terms such as:

“it won’t work on GrapheneOS” “locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method”

which make it sound like it’s a permanent and definitive limitation.

It is not, they can add support later, as they stated already.

> It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out everyone using Google-surveiled handset.

hmmm, what do you have in mind? Publish it to F-Droid but not to the google app store?

Re: German implementation of eIDAS will require an Apple/Google account to function

#672

Post by subscribed »

illiac786 wrote: post #671
subscribed wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misleading way to put it. Re: Android. Goggle can supports AOSP attestation like any other vendor who wants to support it. They invented it. So instead of immediately locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method, I'd developers could go the vendor agnostic way, but consciously decided not to. It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out e…

You are misleading in fact, you use terms such as: “it won’t work on GrapheneOS” “locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method” which make it sound like it’s a permanent and definitive limitation. It is not, they can add support later, as they stated already. > It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out everyone using Google-surveiled handset. hm…

I indeed said "locking down everyone (...) to only Google-depended method"

It is a permanent limitation until it's resolved by the vendor, isn't?

You are phrasing it like it was untrue that on non-Google Androids it will work.

It's false - it will not, until it's fixed (changed).

They CAN add the alternative methods later but until they added they're not there.

So it's a permanent failure until (not unless) until it's resolved by either removing the hard dependency on Google Play Integrity or adding alternative attestation methods.

And your last comment about FDroid is a little bizarre to be honest - if it's meant to be available it must be on the Google Play too.

I was just objecting the suggestion that ADDING alternative methods of attestation somehow precludes devs from using Google play integrity as well.

Re: German implementation of eIDAS will require an Apple/Google account to function

#673

Post by illiac786 »

subscribed wrote: post #672
illiac786 wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misleading in fact, you use terms such as: “it won’t work on GrapheneOS” “locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method” which make it sound like it’s a permanent and definitive limitation. It is not, they can add support later, as they stated already. > It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out everyone using Google-surveiled handset. hm…

I indeed said "locking down everyone (...) to only Google-depended method" It is a permanent limitation until it's resolved by the vendor, isn't? You are phrasing it like it was untrue that on non-Google Androids it will work. It's false - it will not, until it's fixed (changed). They CAN add the alternative methods later but until they added they're not there. So it's a permanent failure until (not unless) until it'…

What’s a temporary failure then for you, I’m curious? Everything is permanent, following your definition.

You didn’t answer my question. I don’t understand what you are suggesting. You want them to do AOSP at the same time rather than afterward? You simply disagree with they prioritisation? They stop using words like lockdown, it’s misleading. Say “I wish they had included AOSP support in the initial release” then everyone understand what you want.

Post reply on HN