undefined

our govt farms the authorization out to banks (multiple of them), seems to work well. There is also a govt auth on top of that if you don't want that.

by jedberg8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Banks can't just ban you, nor just take your money. The price they pay for being gatekeepers is a ton of regulation.

This is why PayPal for the longest time made it really clear that "we are not a bank". So that they wouldn't be subject to those regulations and could suspend accounts and keep the money.

by Terr_7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Banks can't just ban you

They kinda can.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/seeing-like-a-bank/

by jedberg5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sure, but they have to give you your money back. They can't just keep the money.

by Terr_5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think in this context the concern isn't that you'll lose the money, but your loss of all legal/practical authentication mechanisms.

In other words, you leave the bank-branch with a big sack of cash... And then your car is impounded because you can't prove you're the owner or your license expires, and you'll live in a tent in the woods because landlords can't verify your credit/rental history, etc.

by megagpt17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Banks can just ban you if they whisper the magic words "suspected money laundering". They are theoretically accountable to a process that takes 500 years and 3 quadrillion dollars to reach a resolution, then they will unban you. You might notice both you and the bank will be dead by that time.

by jedberg5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I actually know someone this happened to. While they did ban him from using the bank, they first warned him, gave him a chance to close out his open transactions, and then helped him move all the money somewhere else at no cost.

The important part is that they can't just close your account and keep everything.

by pepperoni_pizza8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Depends on where. Here, basically all banks require MFA - where the only supported second factor is their app on an iPhone or non-rooted Android.

Meaning the requirement is just Apple or Google account with extra steps.

by toomuchtodo11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Google and Apple should be legally mandated to federate with nation state identity systems. This prevents them from revoking access, as the identity management is within nation state control vs big tech. You potentially have recourse with your government, you have no recourse with Google and Apple (current state). They may consume your identity for your benefit, but they may not control your digital identity. If a Big Tech company chooses to ban you, they should be required to provide you, at their cost, a copy of all of your data stored with them and report that they did so to a regulator.

I strongly doubt the US would mandate this, but could see the EU doing so. The technical primitives exist and implementation is straightforward. Without a law, this will not change, there is no incentive for it to change.

by PontifexMinimus10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The way the EU could implement this is to mandate only using identity providers can guarantee they will not revoke people's identities, and the only way to make that guarantee watertight is to mandate only identity providers based within the EU.

by toomuchtodo10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There are no guarantees unfortunately, just contracts (formal and informal) that can be broken and paths as to what happens when those contracts degrade or fail. Agree with you on mandating EU only idps for those who reside within the EU jurisdiction.

by subscribed9 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Google and Apple should be legally mandated to federate with nation state identity systems.

With which states?

I'm I'm a citizen of two and live in the third, potentially having eSIM of the fourth?

by toomuchtodo9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The same states and countries they integrate with today for digital identity verification. If you have a passport, national ID card, or US state ID or driver's license, you have a government provided digital identity that can bound to and authenticated against. I'm probably missing a government credential in scope, but the backend database lookup is trivial.

The US Login.gov idp is about to roll out identity attestation using your state issued government credential provisioned in your mobile wallet (mDL), for example. I can perform identity proofing and attestation with my digital driver's license and passport in my iPhone Wallet today (at a TSA or CBP checkpoint, for example). Why can I not login to Google and Apple with that identity? It is federated identity management fundementally.

https://zendesk.login.gov/hc/en-us/articles/51945946704148-m...

https://learn.wallet.apple/id

https://wallet.google/intl/en_us/digitalid/

by lukeschlather6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Putting IDs in mobile wallets is such a minefield without explicit bans on phone searches by law enforcement. Law Enforcement being able to rifle through all your email/bank/medical records because you had a traffic stop is just not acceptable.

by toomuchtodo6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The ID can be presented without providing the device to law enforcement. Same UX as a payment, it’s an NFC exchange.

by roosterIllusi0n7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Why does google and apple need a government login? This makes no sense. You do not want private billionaire companies coming anywhere near a government login. If they get to use it, they will lobby to make it less secure to support more datamining.