zlacker

>>pimter+(OP)
Maybe I'm wrong but Web Attestation will also be a death knell for Linux devices (not Android/Chrome OS) as far as being able to use them as equal clients to use the Web goes. They're simply too diverse and 'hackable' as a plotform for remote attestation to work reliably and thus they'll be excluded altogether (except a few 'blessed' distros that will then become industry controlled, and not Linux in spirit anymore).

>>Santos+94
I slightly suspect that the only platforms that will actually implement Web Attestation are the ones I'm trying to remove myself from, so I secretly[1] hope this is the catalyst I need to stop going on crappy social networks and video platforms.

I apparently don't have the will power to stop going on these sites so maybe stopping me loading content from the other side is exactly what I need.

[1] Not so secretly now I've mentioned it here I suppose.

>>onion2+z8
Banks.

>>tomsto+59
There's a lot of competition in the banking sector, so I don't think banks can afford to start telling customers that they need specific devices to access their online services.

>>N19PED+vb
The banking sector is EXACTLY where "cyber 'security'" and "compliance" will mandate for this to be implemented.

When I worked a bank at $oldjob, compliance mandated we had a full-blown anti virus engine (from Microsoft or McAfee, "at your option") deployed in quasi-ephemeral container images.

It does not have to be reasonable, it doesn't have to be a net positive - it just has to tick some box on some compliance sheet for this to be required, and I will never again be able to perform a banking transaction from my personal computer or degoogled phone again.