Comment by spwa4 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spwa4 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Oh I see your confusion. It is not trying to prove it's not cheating with the UI (or remote control, or ...) to the owner of the phone. It's proving to the owner of the website (or app, or SIM, or ...) that it's really the user agreeing to the contract on the screen. Or, more to the point, it's proving it to courts after the fact so they'll convict the owner of the phone rather than the business or government.

The scenario it would prevent is that a government gets a filled in form with someone requesting unemployment benefits, or reimbursement for a medical procedure on account X ... and then government finds out after payment, later, in court, that the owner of the phone never agreed to it and it needs to pay it out again (because the claim, true or not, that a scammer initiated the payment agreement in some way rather than the owner). Same for business and agreeing to a loan and ...

It is NOT to protect you, the owner of the phone, against scammers (it does not really do that at all), it is to protect companies and especially governments AGAINST the owner of the phone. It is a way to fire most EU government employees by allowing automation that currently can't work because you can't legally trust phone and internet automation to be binding in court.

The argument here is kind of hard to follow. Who is the "owner" of the phone, "the user" is also mentioned and it is not clear if these two are the same. Is the owner of the phone in the controlling-software sense, Google, or is it the end user? Both fits, and both are commonly used.

Because if it is the end user, the strong version of the argument would be as follows: The end user signs a document, baked in is an attestation that Google guarantees that this device is an approved Android device with a clean boot chain and a Chrome web browser. Then the end user contests the signature in court, either because they didn't understand what they signed, or they did not sign it at all, or did it under threat. How could the attestation help here?

I do not have experience with all EU countries, of course, but more than one, and nowhere is this an issue today. Countries use a wide variety of electronic identification, from soft certificates and mobile phones to smart cards. But as far as I know, all countries accept signatures made even with normal Windows PCs. You can contest a signed document in court for a multitude of reasons, but that's not specific to electronic signatures.

> How could the attestation help here?

By proving that when the user clicked "Yes, I want this loan, $X deposited on amount Y" that is actually what was on the screen then the user clicked approve. In other words, that the agreement is actually what the REMOTE party believes it is, even if the owner installed "Free coins in the bunny casino v7.0.apk" from a website.

(meaning that is not currently very provable, and exploited by scammers quite a bit. Courts have a nasty irritating habit of holding the more powerful party (ie. the bank/government) responsible for the consequences of scammers' actions. Well, at least from the viewpoint of banks/governments that is a nasty habit)

That is indeed the question: How does attestation help with proving that?

From my limited understanding, I can immediately think of a dozen ways to implement such an attack, and none would be helped by Google attesting that the device is indeed a legitimate Android(tm) device.

It is very hard to understand how this would make any difference juridically. The technical difficulties of avoiding phishing aside, contracts can be contested for a multitude of reasons, including contracts being signed involuntarily.

Do you imply that google can prove such a thing or it's just a security theater for (((compliance)))? AFAIK attestation attests hardware, not software, but hardware attestation is self contained and doesn't require any remote cartel permission, cf yubikey attestation.

The EU is trying to make a standard that courts will enforce because EU politicians (the commission, not parliament) really want that. But all EU countries are trying to save cash without touching what's causing the money problem (that would be pensions, there is no way in hell EU governments can spend what's required to keep pensions going as is even in 2026. In the past they spent all the pension money instead of investing and now they have to start paying it back, except they can't. And if they touch pensions ... well there's a French joke. It goes something like this "One of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century is that you can see Paris from space. Look there it is, that flame right there ...")

So they're just going to use the Apple/Google standards and declare the job done. So it's theater from all sides. Politicians will pretend this is a good solution because they don't want to spend real money, and they really want to tempt EU kids to get loans on their smartphones because, you know, in the EU you're protected from companies exploiting you. Of course, that just means governments will have to do it instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com