zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
So that's it then.

If this actually goes through, there will be no option in the mobile OS market for an OS that both:

a) allows the installation of apps without any contractual relationship with any party, and

b) allows the use of mainstream and secure apps like banking

>>EMIREL+lm
In time, you will only be able to access banking from your desktop using an approved OS and browser with attestation...

>>CalRob+dp
Actually my bank already requires me to use the phone app for any operation on the website. When I want to login from my laptop I need to use my phone with their app to approve the login, same for almost any operation.

Ah, and it can only be installed in one device at the same time :D Don't have your phone available? Bad luck for you

>>slyzmu+LR
> can only be installed in one device at the same time

I neither like nor understand this restriction. It makes device failure / loss / theft a much more difficult experience to recover from than it would otherwise be. The device should be throwaway. I specifically keep old phones in case something happens to the new one.

WhatsApp is probably the stupidest example of only being able to be on a single device (but I'm forced to use WhatsApp for one specific purpose, so I already resent it). Signal does the same thing, so maybe it's related to the E2EE that WhatsApp licensed from Signal...

>>BLKNSL+vV
> It makes device failure / loss / theft a much more difficult experience to recover from than it would otherwise be.

As is with all two factor, but don't point that out, or the "but muh security" bros will shout you down.