undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthecatapps1d ago0 comments

I'm failing to see why they didn't just adopt Private Access Tokens (not that they're great either), where they could have at least:

- pretended that it wasn't all about invading peoples' privacy.

- done a good ol' fashioned "but Apple does it"

- pretended to be standards-oriented

- advertised it as something completely transparent to the end-user

Seems like that would've caused a lot less backlash while still achieving the goal of having some form of device attestation -- but I'm guessing that's not the real goal.

0 comments

treis1d ago

It doesn't fundamentally solve anything. You want to be able to identify a specific person or at least a relatively expensive device so that if you ban them they stay banned.

rockskon6h ago

As others in this thread have commented - there are scammer hubs where a single person controls hundreds if not thousands of phones at a time.

The people who this method is most hoping to stop are the least likely to be impacted by it in the long run.

altairprime16h ago

This is the exact method used to secure iMessage against spam: secure attestation and ‘console’ bans of devices (reversible by iirc phoning support, indicating who you purchased the used device from, and providing an ID). But Google is trying to pull a Windows 11 “TPM or die” conversion on the public Internet via Recaptcha. Welcome to the attestation wars, unwitting websites :)

supriyo-biswas1d ago

Private access tokens are also a repackaged WEI as far as I'm concerned.

incompatible1d ago

"pretended" ... do they even care any more?

FateOfNations1d ago

Not Invented Here Syndrome?

nightpool1d ago

The article mentions that they use Private Access Tokens on iOS, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they're "not adopting" them from

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse