• magguzu@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Honestly the original post arguing against them makes very valid points that I wasn’t expecting to read to the end, even if they probably lost 90%+ of readers with the length that could have been cut down.

    Speaking as a GrapheneOS and Linux user, the possibility of remote attestation to stop me from doing so is a legitimately shitty thought.

    Been quite a fan of the convenience though as I just hate having to keep my phone on me all the time. So I’m torn, but will continue using them at least until a whiff of big tech buffoonery comes around.

    Edit: Ricky’s arguments seem sound but I think you can also tack on “for now” to all of them. They also work for Apple so worth mentioning that potential conflict of interest/bias. I’d be curious of GrapheneOS’s take.

    • IanTwenty@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I agree 100%, this post is not a full rebuttal and does not tackle the concerns directly:

      • The character of the organisations in FIDO does not inspire confidence against lock-in or monopolistic behaviour
      • The possibility of future attestation cutting out those on ‘unapproved’ software and hardware.

      I agree parts of the tech are good, particularly the anti-phishing, anti-replay measures.

      This post seems to say passkeys are in good hands so nothing can go wrong, but I don’t think that’s enough.