upvote
Yeah, but they aren't.

Google certifies devices unpatched for the last 10 years, rooted, riddled with the malware, because the keys have leaked.

Google knows and still sells the lie.

But you should know better. Google is not selling the actual security, it's just protecting its business.

reply
Google's business is advertising. Right now they don't care whether your phone is "authentic" or secure, because it doesn't cost them money. As AI-enabled bot fraud rises, they will care. Fighting this requires identifying human beings, and that requires trusted devices to be associated with human beings. We're in the foothills still, but look forward and up at where adtech is going.
reply
How is a trusted device associated with a human being? I'm pretty sure the walls of hundreds of bot phones are running trusted Android.
reply
By attaching your government ID to a (single) phone and verifying the human owns it by checking biometrics. You can try this today if you live in one of several US states and have a recent iOS/Android phone. This doesn't stop one real person from attaching their ID to one real phone and then abusing it for botting, but (if implemented well) it limits you to one-real-ID-one-bot-phone.
reply
Don't hardware identifiers also mean that Google can blacklist your device from vast portions of the internet whenever they feel like it?
reply
Do we know whether this is possible? I'm clueless when it comes to phones, so this is a genuine question.
reply
Only if you need to have the entire application behavior (or at least some trusted confirmation) attested, right? Otherwise, an external USB dongle, tapping a contactless smartcard on a phone etc. could do just fine.
reply
Sure, but then you need to receive an attestation from that external dongle, and/or pre-provision it with an identity (like a national ID smartcard.) It might work in places that distribute this hardware, but it's a crummy UX. I expect that the goal of these systems is to make ID verification a requirement for most routine device usage, sadly, and external dongles will crap that up from a UX perspective.

There is also the problem that most external hardware is less secure than things like Apple's SEP. (But on the other hand, probably more secure than the long tail of cheap Android phones, which use virtualization rather than real hardware.)

reply
> then you need to receive an attestation from that external dongle, and/or pre-provision it with an identity (like a national ID card.)

That's how it works in Germany: You tap your national ID card (as a citizen) or eID card (as a non-citizen) on any NFC-capable iPhone or Android device. I personally much prefer that solution over one that requires a specifically trusted device.

The big gap is trusted user confirmation, though: Users need to see what they sign by tapping their card, and then you're usually back to some form of attestation.

Practically, they also completely botched the rollout; literally everyone I know managed to somehow lock themselves out of their card at the first attempted use (assuming they've even bothered to set it up).

reply
The adtechs want this so they can verify the "human" quality of each user. To do this, they don't want people tapping their government ID on their phones every single time they sign up for Reddit or receive an advertisement. Hence (some derivative of) the ID has to be stored on-device to make the browsing/usage experience seamless.
reply
Fair enough, I can see why not.

To me, it seems like just the right amount of friction, and user expectations can work in favor of privacy here: People will hopefully refuse to tap their ID on their phone for a service where they want to remain completely anonymous, even if the protocol technically might support anonymous assertions.

reply
deleted
reply