zlacker

Often it's not your choice, when e.g. all banking apps have this requirement, and banks require an app to allow you access to your account at all. Or when it's a health service because the data is so "sensitive". Today, platforms like Discord and Twitter very often want your phone number despite not having any technological need for it. Will they in the future require this thing as well so that they are sure that you are not using ad blockers? Will you be unable to communicate with most of society through these "optional" services if you don't have one of these "trusted computing" devices?

This is way more than just about not watching movies in 4k that you could also pirate. This is about turning people who don't have "trusted computing" devices that track every behaviour of theirs into societal outcasts.

>>est31+(OP)
So how do you solve this? Get the government to ban CPU vendors from implementing hardware-rooted remote attestation? I can assure you that this technology is used inside corporations for their own internal security, and such a ban would weaken our ability to survive a cyberwar.

>>fleven+i
Using this technology to secure non-private infrastructure, including corporate networks, makes total sense. And yes, it has some helpful properties to secure that infrastructure. But don't be mistaken, configuration mistakes still exist, as do zero days. Attestation helps against persistence, and this is valuable, but it's only one link in the chain.

That being said, extending it to everyone in a way that curtails individual control of computing devices creates an environment that is dangerous in many ways. I don't want to be in a world where only "approved" software is allowed on my computer or something. This can get wrong really quickly, and a lot of the application of attestation technology for consumers is really just about removing their freedoms.

The place where the government should step in IMO is not to ban CPU vendors from implementing this, but to pass anti-discrimination laws, so ban companies from requiring remote attestation to unlock some specific feature. They should maybe endorse it, or be allowed to warn you, but they should still allow full access regardless.

For the B2B setting there are obvious dangers of monopoly abuse, here the government just needs to enforce existing laws. Microsoft dropping the requirement that the signing key for third parties has to be trusted is IMO a major antitrust violation.

>>fleven+i
> Get the government to ban CPU vendors from implementing hardware-rooted remote attestation?

Get the government to regulate the corporations requiring it. Classify any attestation requirement as discrimination or something. They're excluding people without good reason.

>>est31+(OP)
Discord and Twitter want your phone number to limit how many accounts you are allowed to sign up for.

>>kmeist+9g
That's only part of it, Twitter is also in the ad business, and in the ad industry, phone numbers are used as identifiers to correlate users between datasets.

If it's just about limiting access, Cloudflare imposes a similar limitation of number of accesses you can have to a website via remote attestation. I think once remote attestation becomes more prevalent, it might become useful in the ad business too, e.g. to prevent you from using ad blockers, or similar things.