zlacker

> Here's my personal take: No one is forced to use remote attestation merely to use their device. It's only if you want to use some other service. So - if you don't want to play by the requirements of the service, then just don't use the service?

Completely and utterly disingenuously wrong. Safetynet is already required for most banks, and this will be followed by medical and government services and all forms of media.

This free market 'vote with your wallet' bullcrap only works if there's an alternative to vote for.

>>Schroe+(OP)
Please reread my statement. Safetynet may be required if you want to use online banking for most banks. If you don't want to use online banking, then you aren't subject to the requirements for safetynet, and you're free to roll your own android.

>>googlr+h
I read your statement. It's still disingenuous nonsense.

And what happens when all the physical branches within 100s of km of you shut down because 'online is so convenient' or your doctor starts using an app that requires it, or it's mandatory to do your university exam or log into your government's tax portal or the next covid where you need it to enter a shop?

Or what about when every piece of hardware you can buy has a locked bootloader, or your local phone providers decide to require using their app that puts ads on your lock screen?

Or your local taxis get price dumped out of business by uber which requires it?

>>Schroe+C1
It's still disingenuous nonsense.

How interesting that my original comment which called them out on this blatant shilling has been flagged. While it's not traditional politics, it certainly gives one an appreciation for the effort with which they're attempting to hide their true motives.