These schemes all have the same problem that reddit and Twitter have: they need me more than I need them. If your website or app or whatever won’t work if I’m not on the right device I won’t visit it, and that’s not a bad thing
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
316 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59111 readers
3149 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately.
What happens when Microsoft adds something to their web building tools that forces all visitors to websites using these tools to use IE? Or when your bank (or even worse, utilities) start requiring Windows and IE?
It'll probably end up worse than that. Turn off secure boot and Windows may still run, but it will no longer verify and all these sites will now refuse to work on your computer. So if you like to run Linux, even dual booting or running Windows in a VM for those things that absolutely require Windows won't be good enough anymore.
It's not just that.
Apples implementation of this doesn't tell the website anything about the device other than "Apples approves".
Google's implementation will give the website direct information about the browser and computer. Which permits them to get granular and targeted on restrictions.
Its a fixed identifier, it can be a replacement for amythimg to forcably identify users:
- super cookies
- gpu profiling
- unwanted cookies
- IP adress recording (increseingly unusable)
- phone numbers
- ...
"Apples approves"
This reminds me: If you want to see what happens when a company implements this system where they approve your usage and then warps it into a punishment system later by revoking their approval when youve been naughty, see minecraft chat reporting.
load more comments
(10 replies)
If I as an adult still had my mom telling me that's enough internet for today, and taking away my laptop, I'd hate it but it would objectively be good for me. This is kind of a similar thing. I don't like that these companies fuck up services I like but there's no denying that me leaving reddit for example was overall quite positive thing to happen.
Yep, that’s the bargain I’m making. I’m way happier now that I’m not yelling at nerds on Reddit/Twitter/etc. The nerds on the fediverse are much less time consuming
I think it also goes back to the fact that Twitter et al are meant to be addictive, the way I don’t like giving up Twitter is the same way I wouldn’t like giving up smoking, which both alarms me and makes me ok giving those things up
load more comments
(2 replies)
These schemes all have the same problem that reddit and Twitter have: they need me more than I need them.
This sentiment comes off a lot like "it won't affect me, I don't care".
Like, it doesn't really matter whether you decide not to use these websites anymore. Nobody should have to put up with this shit. That's why we take a stand against it.
This sentiment comes off a lot like “it won’t affect me, I don’t care”.
Then you’ve severely misunderstood what I wrote
Nobody should have to put up with this shit. That’s why we take a stand against it.
That is exactly what I’m advocating for
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm getting here too late for this to be visible, but fuck it.
The difference is Apple doesn't pass any information on to the website. It just tells the website whether or not it passes their integrity check. Your web environment gets the Apple stamp of approval or it doesn't, that's all the sites will know.
Googles shit is going pass actual information about the browser state, add-ons, and the device to the site so they can restrict access based on any criteria they choose. That creates endless more avenues for abuse by giving the websites the ability to judge you for themselves and micromanage how you are allowed to visit their site.
Apple's is the equivalent of a metal detector before walking into a building. It will go off but it doesn't violate your privacy or enable targeted screening by telling anyone what it detected.
Google's is the equivalent of a strip search, where it will drop your clothes and pictures of your junk onto the property managers desk so they can decide if you're worthy to enter. Maybe they don't like your brand of underwear, or a tattoo you have, and refuse to let you in.
It's hardly OK for Apple to be doing even that either, you know. Who the fuck does Apple think it is, to be entitled to "attest" to a goddamn thing?!
The notion that anyone can "attest" to users' caputured-by-DRM status is fundamentally toxic to the Internet as a whole and must be resisted at all costs and by any means necessary, legal or illegal.
Can you post any source at all that would back your claims? Or any technical details at all?
Neither the actual proposal https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#what-information-is-in-the-signed-attestation, nor the article itself seem to show that there would be a difference when it comes to privacy.
The entire problem with this proposal is that it limits client choice, similar to how Google Play integrity API on Android restricts some apps from running on rooted/unlocked phones.
That same problem obviously also exists in Apple's implementation.
Your comment was on the top for me, Lemmy's default "hot" sorting brings fresh takes to the front, so don't worry too much about your answers always getting buried.
i love seeing comments like this at the top for some reason on here
Transmitting that info to Apple is still a problem. Why do you trust Apple, but not Google?
Google's version will likely ask you first, and you'll know which sites are asking for it. Apple's won't.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The danger would be important entities like governments and banks using attestation. Then you'd be limited to using only Chrome, Safari and Edge, and Firefox could kiss its ass goodbye.
Bank: my bank is too boomercore to ever implement something like this, we only recently got 2fa
Government: my government still makes me file my taxes on paper and mail it to them so I’m ok for now
Banks and governments could get trapped into this because a third party vendor implements a system for them that includes this.
Like Salesforce's "Lightning Experience sites" only supports the latest versions of iOS and Android, as well as only supporting chromium based browsers and Firefox.
A lot of banks and government services run on that platform, and not all of them are going to be smart enough to pay for a custom solution that increases device support.
load more comments
(3 replies)
My bank is welcome to implement features that prevent using Firefox. It'll cost them when I move my deposits, but they're welcome to do it.
People didn't leave Wells Fargo and BoA en masse with all the illegal shit they did, why do you think this would have any real effect on them?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Somehow, I am not surprised. Both, that Apple already did it and that there was no public outcry about it.
The solution would be not to visit those sites that require this, right?
Well it’s already integrated into cloudfare and fastly. So good luck with that.
Pretty much all major sites use one of those two as a CDN.
Wouldn't cloudflare's client (the website you're trying to visit) be the one to implement this, while cloudflare simply does the verification?
No it would be cloudfare. That’s their whole business.
So, for example, right now if you visit a website using cloudfare as their CDN, and your browser looks “suspicious”, cloudfare will grab you and redirect you to a verification page to put a captcha in to verify that you’re human before they will direct you back to the website you’re trying to go to. That’s why people use cloudfare in the first place instead of trying to implement some verification themselves. It’s easier and cheaper to outsource to a specialist.
Attestation would just be a “fast pass” for users. If your browser looks “suspicious” then you would be redirected to cloudfare for verification. Instead of a captcha though, it would automatically negotiate with your browser that would present a token generated on device to cloudfare. Cloudfare would reach out to the attestor for that browser with that token to validate it. For safari it would be Apple, for edge it would be Microsoft, for other chromium browsers it would be Google. The attestor would look at the token and be able to say “yes this is a valid, unmodified version of macOS/Windows/ChromeOS/etc and likely to be a normal human” and you would be directed back to the website you want to go to instead of having to put a captcha in.
The danger is when these companies start to control attestation. If you have a modified OS? Sorry we don’t know if they’re human. And you’ll have to enter a captcha. Potentially, if your phone/machine is not the latest version? Sorry don’t know, enter a captcha. Using lineage instead of a licensed version of Android (like Samsungs skin, etc), sorry not validated, enter a captcha.
If attestation becomes mainstream, then it will be the default because it’s cheaper for the CDNs and everyone to do. But it puts the power in the hands of like 3 companies for attestation. And it’s very very likely they will start limiting attestation as a “feature”. Have a galaxy phone? Well if you haven’t upgraded in a few years and are no longer in recurrent supported devices list, sorry no attestation. And they only offer like 3-4 years of official support. So if you don’t want to enter a captcha every time you change webpages, better upgrade homie.
So naturally it will push your average consumer to just upgrading a perfectly fine device instead of keeping it. And it will discourage a ton of FOSS stuff because that will all be “unvalidated modifications” or won’t implement it. If Google implements it, that will be the nail because chrome has like a 70% market share and pretty much everyone will develop for that. So they’ll all develop with Google’s attestation in mind. If you’re using Firefox which won’t implement it, you’ll be entering a captcha every time. And that will push people over to the big companies.
Attestation is a MUCH bigger thing than people think. You don’t need to worry about every website implementing it. You only need to worry about like 3. Cloudfare and Fastly are two huge ones, which have already implemented it on an as available basis. Right now it’s just Safari but they have it available if Google and Microsoft implement it.
Google themselves are the third one since the way operate their own CDN for themselves and clients. If they implement attestation there will be immediately a huge chunk of the web using it. Like 70%+. Cloudfare has 20%+ of the market and Fastly is like 18%. Google makes up another huge chunk but I couldn’t find any figures.
That would be such a huge immediate usage that it would very rapidly become the default and would lock people into only the big companies.
Ok, so I will not use them. This is acceptable to me
You’re using two right now lol.
Both Kbin and Lemmy world use Cloudfare as their CDN.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you're gonna make a conscious effort to not use cloudflare and fastly you might as well quit the internet altogether. You use those things all the time, mostly without even realizing it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hard when those sites are things like your bank, your government official stuff pages, etc.
This attestation stuff is a "not such a bad idea in its basic principle" thing that will actually absolutely get abused everywhere in every way including being used to kill off browser competitors, enhance monopoly positions, etc.
It needs to be stopped now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
your treatment on the web depends on whether Apple says your device, OS & browser configuration are legitimate & acceptable.
Well, fuck that.
It's not a problem until more sites start REQUIRING it, and then it's too late. Even if some Apple already provides it, it's more dangerous as use grows
It makes it even more easy to adjust online prices for apple users, lol
is there any positive use case for it for the user at all?
No, its an alternate evil scheme to uniquely identify users and not bots. Replacing the phone number.
load more comments
(4 replies)
What I don't understand is how does the attester check the device is not modified? Anything client side is just a matter of time until its get bypassed.
It needs integration with the TPM/secure element chip in the CPU and a device key issued by the manufacturer to sign an attestation that nothing in the software chain from kernel to browser has been modified .
These schemes tends to get regularly broken, just look at SGX
What does this mean? Do they now own the internet ? Can someone please TLDR it?
A very short TLDR would be:
Apple (in this case) decides if your device should be trusted as a human, or if it's suspicious / a robot, which could break parts of the Internet for those not joining this "attestation", or using software that doesn't support it.
A more ELI5 version would be that Apple has implemented a controversial API (The Web Environment Integrity API) that indicates if a combination of OS + Browser + User behaviour is to be trusted as being human.
Attestation before used to mean "is this device who it says it is", and one can check that in some ways as part of WebAuthN (aka "Passwordless login"), where it would be useful to know if an Android device a site knows you have (as you've logged in before) is that same device. It's a system to trust devices. The WEI-API expands this to look at your OS, your browser and your environment, like installed applications.
Problem with this, is that the requirements don't have to be public. Apple can decide what makes a "trustworthy device" and what can be considered "suspicious".
Bad examples like these are to "fail" attestation if you have torrent clients installed, of if you're connected via a VPN, or if you're not using Bing + Edge on Windows.
Browsers and OS'es refusing to support attestation are likely to become a minority (most users use Chrome, and Google seems to be in favour). Should sites start blindly trusting this "attestation" - in replacement of captcha's -, we could start seeing more privacy-prone combinations being locked out of these kind of sites.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›