[ploxiln]

I think, practically, everyone will need at least a cheap-ish android or iphone, perhaps $300 (and a new one every few years ...), to be their locked-down "agent" for using financial or government services. It's not for you, it's for the government/banks, it is their agent for talking to you.

Kinda weird, if you think about it. But that seems to be the way it's heading.

[lxgr]

> everyone will need at least a cheap-ish android or iphone, perhaps $300

No, the much more secure while at the same time liberty-preserving way to do this are heavily sandboxed secure enclaves with attestation, or even better standalone tamper-proof devices capable of attestation.

Like the ones practically every bank customer already has in their wallet, and for which most phones have a built-in reader these days... The only thing missing is a secure input and output channel, like a small built-in display and a button or biometric input.

In any case, I somewhat empathize with banks in that they want to ensure that my transaction confirmation device is not compromised, but getting to dictate what software does and doesn't run on my own hardware outside of maybe a narrow sandbox needed to do that is a no-go.

[roenxi]

In principle I'm certainly on board with the idea, but the problem is - at least in the Anglosphere, probably further - that the financial system is part of the military and policing systems. They are a powerful and persistent lobby that want a phone to be able to provide enough who-what-when-where to be able to put someone in jail or in extreme cases drop a missile on them.

That is one of the reasons the crypto market is behaving like some radical innovation instead of just a group of bozos speedrunning financial history. For the first time since the invention of capital we have an asset class where it doesn't take the cooperation of a group of armed thugs to guarantee the integrity of the system.

[arter45]

What kind of integrity are you talking about?

Merkle trees can prevent tampering after the fact, yes.

But if you include collusion, there's no way for the blockchain itself to know who is colluding and where they are so.

Smart contracts may be vulnerable or malicious.

Wallets can be emptied.

Centralized exchanges and similar entities still exist.

Policing systems are still needed, because as long as there is something of value and there is still "evil" in the world, someone will try to steal it or damage it.

[Retric]

Crypto is decentralized but that only goes so far. There’s plenty of instances where bunch of armed guys have taken over data centers not just vaults.

[sudoshred]

I would like to have the opportunity to consider a decentralized consensus algorithm that could accommodate nation state adversaries regularly. Not simply something cryptographically secure and distributed but something which can retroactively route around nodes who are temporarily bad due to external circumstances.

[nine_k]

I don't see how a separate dedicated piece of hardware is less secure. It has zero contact whatsoever with your other comm devices. It can be switched off when not needed, to prevent any chance of tracking you. Think of it as of an advanced yubikey.

It's not money-preserving though. You need an extra device, and an extra phone number. The separate phone number is another privacy-preserving feature though.

[lxgr]

> Think of it as of an advanced yubikey.

A cheap Android phone is pretty much the opposite of a Yubikey, in terms of trusted computing base and attack surface.

[TeMPOraL]

There's a second layer to the conflict here, in that (e.g.) the banks will want to move the entire flow into whatever secure device, enclave, or "agent" they supply - meanwhile, the whole point of me having a general-purpose computer is to be able to do general-purpose computing that I want within this flow.

My favorite, basic example is this: I'd like to create my own basic widget showing me my account balance on my phone's home screen. Doesn't have to be real-time, but accurate to +/- few minutes to what the bank app would say when I opened it. It has to be completely non-interactive - no me clicking to confirm, no reauthorizing every query or every couple hours. Just a simple piece of text, showing one number.

As far as I know it, there's no way of making it happen without breaking sandboxing or otherwise hacking the app and/or API endpoints in a way that's likely to break, and likely to get you in trouble with the bank.

It should not be that way. This is a basic piece of information I'm entitled to - one that I can get, but the banks decided I need to do it interactively, which severely limits the utility.

This is my litmus test. Until that can be done easily, I see the other side (banks, in cooperation with platform vendors) overreaching and controlling more than they should.

The point of the exercise isn't to just see the number occasionally; I can (begrudgingly) do that from the app. The difference here is that having the number means I can use it downstream. Instead of a widget on the phone screen, I could have it shown on a LED panel in my home office or kitchen[0], or Home Assistant dashboard. Or I could have a cron job automatically feeding it to my budgeting spreadsheet every 6 hours. Or I could have an LLM[1] remind me I've spent too much this week, or automatically order a pizza on Saturday evening but only if I'm not below a certain threshold. Or...

Endless realistic, highly individual applications, of a single basic number. The whole point of general-purpose computing empowering individuals. If only I could get that single number out.

--

[0] - Why would I want that is besides the point.

[1] - E.g. via Home Assistant.

[lxgr]

> the banks will want to move the entire flow into whatever secure device, enclave, or "agent" they supply - meanwhile, the whole point of me having a general-purpose computer is to be able to do general-purpose computing that I want within this flow.

Sure, you should definitely be able to do what you want with your computer, but you're actually demanding more here (at least in the case of transaction initiation and confirmation): For others to also trust the outcome of whatever you did on your own computer.

Banks are often legally required to cover losses resulting from unauthorized account access, so I can somewhat understand them wanting to minimize the chance of that happening. Sandboxed trusted computing, when done well, can strike that compromise much better than annoying non-solutions like root detection heuristics or invasive full-system attestation.

> As far as I know it, there's no way of making it happen without breaking sandboxing or otherwise hacking the app and/or API endpoints in a way that's likely to break, and likely to get you in trouble with the bank.

Banks should probably be required to make such a read-only API available (and in the EU, they are, to some extent – unfortunately only to "trusted", i.e. regulated and registered, service providers, raising the old question of who determines who is and isn't trusted). This is a very different story from transaction initiation.

Unfortunately, there are also caveats here. It's getting more and more common for companies to require me to "connect my bank account", which often means nothing less than granting them full and persistent account view access.

I think having the API still outweighs the downsides of others also starting to make demands for that access, but it's a slippery slope. For example, Airbnb not too long ago wanted full access to all(!) my Chase accounts to "verify my credit card".

[astafrig]

Up Bank provides an API that enables these use cases: https://developer.up.com.au/

[dwaite]

> No, the much more secure while at the same time liberty-preserving way to do this are heavily sandboxed secure enclaves with attestation, or even better standalone tamper-proof devices capable of attestation.

Thats what is being required. The problem is making sure the policy is enforced correctly includes local business logic and user experience components. The money transfer needs to come from an authenticated user providing consent, not from some software that happens to have managed to get installed on the phone with sufficient permissions to interface with the secure element or to have their version of a library loaded.

That means one needs to validate user-facing software, and not just the API to a black box. Thus one is requiring a chain of custody validation up to the boot loader.

[thewebguyd]

Nah, if a bank or some other civic entity wants to have a "secure agent" for transactions/communication with me, then they should be the ones providing that.

Much like I expect my employer to provide me hardware, and that hardware is used exclusively for work.

I shouldn't have to spend my own money on another device, nor should they be asserting their desires for control onto my own devices.

[dorfsmay]

Yet you're paying to get a passport etc...

[unparagoned]

You are free to use your pc. But it’s up to you if you want the more advanced features on a phone app.

[macbem]

And exactly who's going to pay for that?

[thewebguyd]

The issuing entity. They want a "secure device" to do business with me, then they get to issue said device.

Otherwise, they just get to be OK with offering me a website or letting me transact with them on my own device that's under my own control without stipulations like requiring attestation, or prohibiting root.

The point is, governments nor banks or other private entities, should be getting to dictate what can and cannot be done on someone's computing device.

[ncruces]

They're happy to provide that. It's a called debit card that you take to an ATM machine.

It's been popular demand, not financial institutions, driving the change to “the smartphone can do everything, I don't want to take debit/credit cards with me everywhere.”

People don't want an additional card, or yubi key, or printed second factor, or whatever, to authenticate.

They want an app that uses a data connection, and a fingerprint to replace even needed a PIN. They tolerate a second channel: an SMS, if the app automatically reads it. That's as much inconvenience as the general public is willing to put up with.

They're starting to demand that this works offline for smaller spends. And they'll put up with a phone call as a 3rd factor for when they want to unblock a really high spend, like purchasing a car, but it can't happen all the time.

They want this to work reliably, even on holidays, all around the world. And they want the banks to cover losses if it all goes south.

Now try to design a system that covers the requirements people are demanding for, without trusting the terminal the people decided they want to access it from.

[gambiting]

At least here in the UK for years if you opened a bank account, even a free one, you'd get a debit card + a device for generating secure keys for online and telephone banking. Like a standalone, battery powered device the size of a calculator.

Like....why can't we just go back to that? Banks were "fine"(doesn't mean happy) to shoulder the cost of these devices then.

[unparagoned]

You can still use them. It’s just mobile apps are better in almost every way. Maybe you should uninstall your mobile app and go back to using a device.

[lossolo]

> perhaps $300

Maybe in US. In Vietnam, $300 is the average monthly salary, and the minimum wage is around $150. Probably the majority of people don't have a primary phone worth more than $300.

[shevy-java]

This is ultimately a form of slavery though.

A country that is a dictatorship - I can understand why their slaves have to go through this. I fail to see why a true democracy would do this though. There is zero need to be required to have a smartphone; all those transactions work perfectly fine on a desktop computer system too, under Linux. People then may have a second device at home, some card reader and/or a thing such as Yubiko or something like that. IMO not even this should be required, but to mandate an app that would not be permissive under Linux - that is true dictatorship. I am surprised the government of Vietnam went that way.

[esseph]

But with kernel level attestation, the banks can start requiring this on computers as well...

(From the kernel-level anti-cheat discussion the other day)

[nickff]

Even elected governments already have the ability to take whatever they want from you, and force you to act against your own interests; this seems like a comparatively minor infringement.

[regularfry]

They can pay for it then. And I'll have my own, that I control.

[Dylan16807]

I was going to object to $300, but maybe that will be needed if you want actual security...

Just "a phone" with a bad update policy is $100.

[thisislife2]

Or ... just don't install the apps and use the browser to do your banking.

[andy99]

My (Canadian) bank extorted me into installing their app, literally blocking me from doing transfers of my own money without it - I had to install it and take a picture of myself and my ID. After this I was able to switch to sms authentication and delete it, but they’re obviously trying to force people onto the app, and eventually they will do so more aggressively.

Of course in Canada we have a banking oligopoly that is effectively there just to rob people, but ironically any of the “challenger” startup banks are 100% app based afaik

[FpUser]

May I ask what bank? I use CIBC and RBC. They do not require any apps on the phone to reach whatever services they offer. I use all my work on desktop.

I did install app from CIBC for one single and the only purpose - deposit cheques sent to me by clients to my business account without having to go to ATM or the bank teller.

[throwaway2037]

    > Of course in Canada we have a banking oligopoly that is effectively there just to rob people

Are there any OECD nations that don't have a banking oligopoly? I can think of at least one: Germany, because they have Sparkasse (community banks). Does Canada have community banks like Germany and the United States? If yes, then you should vote with your wallet and switch.

[noir_lord]

UK has building societies, they function like a bank mostly but are mutual (owned by it's members).

In my experience they are more pleasant to deal with, tend to be smaller/more conservative with tech and you can speak to a human when shit goes sideways.

Mine has never laundered money for the cartels (unlike my other bank) which is a plus as well.

[john01dav]

Perhaps you need a tech person to partner with experienced bank people to create a new bank that isn't shit

[riedel]

Does not work anymore for many banks in Germany. I have 2 accounts that require me to have different second factor apps installed. For one bank I would have to open a separate account with a debit card to use hw tan generator. For the other AI would have to switch bank account after the regulators banned SMS and indexed paper TANs.

[malux85]

Assuming the browser has feature parity. I was visiting my parents over Xmas and my dad couldn’t make a payment because the number of saved payees was capped to 100. There was literally no option to delete a payee in the website, the only way we found was to install the app, authenticate, and do it in there. It’s happening already.

[thewebguyd]

I hate that this is happening. I absolutely detest doing any kind of task other than pure content consumption and basic messaging from a smart phone.

Anything remotely more advanced than that, please let me use my computer and an app or website with, you know, an interface designed for more advanced operations.

Trying to do anything on a smartphone/touchscreen only device is nothing but an effort in pure frustration for me.

[deaux]

How are people on HN of all places still this short-sighted to not understand that this will stop being an option? It's incredible to see like 10 individuals commenting this all over threads like these. Think before you comment.

[lfliosdjf]

Its already not an option in India with axis bank. Without mobile you can't do digital login.

[gonzalohm]

You can just use your bank's website. No need for two phones

[skibidithink]

Until they decide that they only support 2FA by app push notification.

[gcuvyvtvv6]

My bank turned their website off. Mobile app only now.

[fhdkweig]

Care to name and shame that bank? I would like to avoid any bank that doesn't use a website.

[gonzalohm]

Really? And you are okay with losing access to your money if your phone is lost/stolen?

[aembleton]

If your bank has a website.

[fsflover]

If not, you should seriously consider switching banks (while you can). I suspect that such banks do not take security seriously: Giving control over your phone to Apple/Google is not security.