[webhamster]

German implementer here. We have to use some kind of attestation mechanism per the eIDAS implementing acts. That doesn't work without operating system support.

The initial limitation to Google/Android is not great, we know that, and we have support for other OSs on our list (like, e.g., GrapheneOS). It is simply a matter of where we focus our energy at the moment, not that we don't see the issues.

[verbalize2224]

You should think about how easy it is to permanently lose access to your Google account for very trivial issues and Google doesn't offer any form of recovery. That in addition to the current geopolitical situation should be reason enough not to rely on that for any justification.

And personally as a software developer myself i know that nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. No one will prioritize or give budget to change it later "because it works"

[trklausss]

What? They should freaking think of sanctions, not about "how easy is to lose Google account". Both Google and Apple are American companies. If someone lands on a sanctions list, they close your account without further notice [1].

Let me get this straight: you can be a defender of human rights, aligned with the country you live in, but if you fall in disgrace with the American government, _you can't even do transactions with your own country_.

So this is fundamentally flawed, and violates the fundamental rights of German citizens in Germany.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/british-icc-chief-prosecutor-l...

[extraduder_ire]

His wife and kids are sanctioned too. Sometimes it isn't even anything you did.

[applfanboysbgon]

Sanctions are a bonus point argument, but shouldn't be a factor either. No citizen should be subjected to this, whether the company running it is American or German. Can you imagine if the Nazis had this level of control in the 1930s? Imagine having your ID digitally revoked, effectively cutting you out of society completely, without so much as an attic to hide in before it can happen. This is a completely dystopian legislation from start to finish. There is no possible way this can ever provide a benefit to the German people, it exists only to control them.

[GoblinSlayer]

Can't you just make a new google account then?

[subscribed]

That's crazy.

Imagine cheering for the company that will block the criminal prosecutors investigating war crimes and genocide from having the ID at all(1) once the supporter of the investigated sanctions the law-abiding persons: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...

But anyway - why the requirement in the first place?

(1) because sanctioned person must not be allowed to create another account.

[GoblinSlayer]

It's puzzling how such sanctions are enforceable in the first place. If the person published their phone number then maybe, but if not then little can be done to identify them.

[KellyCriterion]

....with a new phone number....

[haagch]

German citizen here. So why is an implementation going forward when you already know it will not serve all citizens? Why are we not refusing to implement this until we know we can make it work on all devices?

Personally I recently switched from an AOSP based android without Google Play to Ubuntu Touch. In the future with better hardware support I will probably switch to postmarketOS.

[dabber21]

also German here, we have to get rid of the 100% perfection at launch expectation its crippling this country

[ramblerman]

Taxpayer money project being tied to a dependency on Apple google is 100% counter what that money should be used for.

You are copy pasting a “correct” argument against eu bureaucracy in the absolute wrong space

[conception]

But things not in the launch can easily be deprioritized as budget issues indefinitely. “Oh why spend the money adding support for just a few people??” will be the line moving forward.

[charcircuit]

It would be cheaper to just buy all of the outliers a bottom of the barrel Android phone for them to use with the tax money.

[fsflover]

And force them into the Google surveillance, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261

[raw_anon_1111]

Yes just like it’s cheaper to just provide people who can’t afford a phone in the US a phone by taxing other cell phone users - and I don’t have a problem with that.

[fsflover]

Refusing to send all your private data to the US to benefit their megacorps, using the tax payers' money, is not "perfection". It is the only reasonable and legal choice.

[tremon]

This is not about 100% perfection at launch, this is about civil equality. Launching without broad support for use cases creates a two-tier society.

[josefx]

A 10% goal would be a good first step. Now excuse me while I read some tea leaves to find out if my trains will be on time tomorrow ( spoiler: they wont).

[dudefeliciano]

surely 10% of DB digital offerings work as expected, just not the 10% that is essential for train travel.

[josefx]

I love how just ordering a ticket is already a minefield for anyone not aware of how crappy german services are integrated. Pick one route, you will get a list of fully customized tickets that cover everything you need, pick another and you will get a list of tickets that will get you fined unless you carefully read through each and pick both a ticket that comes close to what you need and buy more tickets to cover any additional options.

The only thing near 100% perfection when it comes to german services is the full assery with which they are implemented.

[dudefeliciano]

So much hate.

Some time ago my "25% DB Card" ran out and was not active anymore, but the app did not display a warning. Even when buying a ticket from the app, it still had the "25% off" option activated by default.

Result: huge fine (something like 200 euros) on the train + I had to buy a completely new ticket (another 100+ euros) because the ticket I had bought ( which was 75% of original price) was considered completely invalid. I tried in all possible ways to get this fine reduced, as it was an honest mistake and arguably caused by their UX, but they did not budge.

I hate hate hate Deutsche Bahn with a passion, yet I still use it cause I'm an idiot who doesn't want to fly for short routes.

[like_any_other]

> it will not serve all citizens

This is an understatement. Better phrasing would be "when it allows two unaccountable foreign companies to lock citizens out of the digital market".

There are plenty of horror stories of tech giants frivolously banning people. We shouldn't be adding state support to that. I don't want to lose access to digital banking because of some deliberately vague "community guidelines" violation, or because I got mass-reported to some "e-safety" provider that both Apple and Google outsource to.

Sibling comments see this as a good solution, just not a perfect one. I see it as making a bad problem worse.

[ExoticPearTree]

> Why are we not refusing to implement this until we know we can make it work on all devices?

Simply put: this will never happen. Way too many devices implementations to make this a reality.

[fsflover]

It's just a matter of creating a web app.

[well_ackshually]

And what attestation services does your web app use? Do we lock that web app behind having Secure boot enabled, along with a Java applet for the fun of it?

If your answer is "none", you missed the point.

[fsflover]

Attestation of what? It's none of your business how I secure and configure my phone. I use a smart card on my Librem 5 btw. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47647047

[well_ackshually]

My business, no. Your government however, has a few reasons to want to ensure that the ID you're going to use to vote, to prove your identity to any service, etc, etc, does not get passed from device to device.

Configure your phone however you want, then use your physical ID because your phone isn't supported. They're not taking it away. In the same way that you can file your taxes. Having an online filing service doesn't mean you're being "excluded" because your i386 running BeOS isn't part of the supported hardware. Send a letter. It'll still work.

[illiac786]

You are assuming it will not be possible to add support to other OS. Why?

What would be “knowing it can work on grapheneOS” for example, in your view?

[subscribed]

It will be possible but simply won't be done.

And as of now it won't work on GrapheneOS, it doesn't pass anything except MEETS_BASIC_INTEGRITY

[illiac786]

That’s not what the parent wrote though.

And why is it so bad that they start with a smaller subset of feature and target the 99% of the population using either google or apple?

[subscribed]

This is a misleading way to put it.

Re: Android.

Goggle can supports AOSP attestation like any other vendor who wants to support it. They invented it.

So instead of immediately locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method, I'd developers could go the vendor agnostic way, but consciously decided not to.

It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out everyone using Google-surveiled handset.

Nb, mixing it up with Apple is a conscious way to further the false claim, and I believe it's not accidental since these ecosystems are naturally completely separate.

[illiac786]

You are misleading in fact, you use terms such as:

“it won’t work on GrapheneOS” “locking down everyone using android to ONLY Google-dependent method”

which make it sound like it’s a permanent and definitive limitation.

It is not, they can add support later, as they stated already.

> It's untrue to claim that supporting AOSP attestation only serves GrapheneOS and leaves out everyone using Google-surveiled handset.

hmmm, what do you have in mind? Publish it to F-Droid but not to the google app store?

[gmueckl]

You have the totally wrong expectations here. Some service that requires citizens to buy and bring their own devices in order to use a service will by definition always be exclusive. Whining about lacking compatibility with some niche sbowflake devices is just inappropriate in this context. The only solutiin is to require an actually convenient fallback for those otherwise excluded from that service.

The limited selection of attestation providers can be criticized for many other reasons, though.

[class4behavior]

Your disdain isn't helpinh you here either as you're just as wrong as parent.

Such public utilities ought to always prioritize privacy, platform-independence, and empowering market competion long- and short-term. And to achieve that you need to start at the design level.

In this case, clearly, you either have to avoid relying on app attestation or lay the foundation for an unrestricted number of independent chain of trust frameworks.

The latter, of course, is a policy-level issue, but the ones responsible for the design and development are the ones who need to pass such concerns up the chain.

[gmueckl]

You have the right starting point, but the wrong conclusion. Government services need to be inclusive of everybody. But you simply cannot build technical solutions that put technical requirements on devices owned by the users in a way that the service is sufficiently inclusive. That is just a fact.

If you want to be critical of the outcome on compatibility grounds, forcing a grind to increase technical compatibility is the wrong thing to ask for. That must necessarily always leave some people behind. The only honest alternative positions on that front are (a) the government issues the tech to everybody itself or (b) the government doesn't build advanced systems at all.

The German government offices rely on a lot of quaint-looking paper based processes, but they have one thing going for them: working through them can be done with pen and paper - tools that are available for cheap and broadly compatible. It's probably not such a bad thing after all?

[class4behavior]

Inclusivity is secondary here. Moreover, it's just fallacious to argue the nation has to give up on its own rights and principles and be content with whatever the market provides.

[miki123211]

Do all German hospitals serve vegan food?

If you were averse to carrots (without any health restrictions on eating them), would every government institution in Germany be required to serve you carrot-free food?

If not, why should they be forced to accommodate every smartphone brand in existence, even if there's only 3 people in Germany using it? THe list has to end somewhere.

[RobotToaster]

> Do all German hospitals serve vegan food?

Can't speak for Germany, but they do in the UK. It would be illegal discrimination against a belief for them not to.

[preisschild]

You are forgetting that by not allowing more open platforms they effectively force you to accept Apple/Google EULA's essentially forcing you to give your private data to Google/Apple.

[haagch]

Lots of hospitals don't even serve healthy food in any sense, so expecting a good coverage of dietary options is optimistic...

But to answer the question in a real way: Veganism is often regarded as just a dietary choice like any other, when in reality courts in several countries have more or less agreed to classify it as a matter of conscience, which would give adherents some right to it. Though it seems German courts have been reluctant to draw much legal consequence from it - so far at least.

So in that sense, I don't think people have been talking about digital sovereignty and abstaining from proprietary software under another country's jurisdiction much as a matter of conscience yet. We can thank Trump that it might actually become a thing though.

[dgellow]

The ones I’m aware of do, yes

[faust201]

They do.

[b112]

While the example your provide is reasonable fair, the comparison is not.

For it to be fair comparison, the carrots would have to be grown by a foreign company, known for using unsafe growing practices, causing contamination. Eg, poison carrots. This same company would have to be under the control of a very hostile, very actively aggressive and threatening nation.

Such as one currently threatening to annex allies, among other things.

With the US literally tapping and spying on heads of foreign states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee...

and there being lots of ways to spy, such as push notifications:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/governments...

Only insane people would objectively decide to use Google or Apple anything for any form of ID. Those platforms should literally be outlawed. Any use of push notifications or identity attention should be looked at as utter fantasy.

Here's a secret for you. There really isn't any urgent requirement to have an electronic identification method. It can wait. Supporting legislation can be passed first. There are lots of ways to do so.

For example, the entire EU could pass legislation stating that all cell phones have open source code available, including all binary blobs for drivers. And that all phones are unlockable, and that (for example) the phone has a version of the rom you can download without any Google services.

(If Apple isn't able to compete here, well... too bad)

The phones would not be legal to sell, unless the open source firmware was compiled in front of regulators. The point of this is another pet-peeve of mine, it would allow people to support their own phones, for that source code would be released the day that phone was no longer supported.

And yes, it's trivial to have open source firmware blobs. There just isn't a market for it. Pass a law, and sellers of SoC and other ICs will capitulate, or maybe more punitive laws will be passed against them. As someone once said, yes companies can have a lot of sway.

But governments have police, courts, and armies.

Right now, Android and Apple devices are a literal arm of the US government's spying apparatus, even if those two companies actively work against it.

Do not trust Google Play. Do not trust Firebase. Do not trust Google. At all.

Are Germans just too trusting? I remember 15 years ago, when nuclear power plants were closing, concerns were raised about the reliance on Russian natural gas. These were waved away. Russia? What's wrong with Russia! They're almost allies, they're capitalists now!

Don't do this again.

Do NOT trust Google. Don't. Don't make it a core part of any identity management.

Imagine, needing an active Google account to even bank! Or to file your taxes, or even to prove who you are!? Google cancels accounts with no recourse, no reason why, won't help anyone, and this is to be the core of identity management for Germany?

The average person won't even be able to install any German Government designed apps, unless they are on the Play store! Are you going to teach Grandma how to use ADB to install an app? Without an active Google Account, will you even be able to use push notifications?

Why would a government even allow ID to be blocked by the requirement that a company with terrible, horrible, inane customer service, which just kills accounts without recourse, be a gatekeeper?

No Google account, no ID! Wha!?

It's literally not sane.

[LexGray]

I think it falls under the article yesterday about male German citizens having restrictions on their travel. Electronic ID is a step toward “papers please”.

Germany at least seems to feel international war is only a few steps away and from how militant the Chinese and Russians have been treating their “territory” I am not sure it is a bad call.

America has likewise turned bad preferring violence over dialogue and loves tracking “hostile influences on the American way of life”. Those influences being anyone who would call out the toxic culprits making America into a cesspit.

Tying to Apple and Google? It is a terrible idea. Both are prone to freeze devices for financial or social issues.

However, a fix I would accept is to force the device makers to support multiple accounts out of box on every device to keep separate what the corporations have proven time and again they cannot be trusted to combine. Also for those companies to be forced to make a cheap credit card sized device which must be held to power on for the few that truly hate the ecosystems.

[dudefeliciano]

> cheap credit card sized device

I don't understand why this is not the default to be honest, and why people are not advocating for that

[b112]

The first thing to go in every major war, will be the reliably of electronic anything.

What's wrong with ID cards and cash?

[raw_anon_1111]

Because you can’t please all of the people. And before someone likens it to the ADA. Even with accommodations you have to make, car makers aren’t for instance required to make cars that blind people can drive.

You chose to use a non mainstream platform. Thats on you.

[haagch]

Sure.

Something I forgot to mention is that the UBPorts foundation whose mobile operating system I currently use is a German organization.

[p2detar]

Do we have stats how many germans use something else than Google Android, Samsung Knox or Apple? I recon it should be less than 1% which quite honestly is in fact „all“ citizens.

[elric]

Sure, let's just arbitrarily exclude ~1million people because they're not running the government's preferred American spyware.

[ryandrake]

This is a very, VERY stereotypical Tech Product Manager viewpoint: "N% of users are hard to support edge cases, so we should exclude them." You see this justification everywhere in business. "We'll drop support for [old OS] once it gets to 1% of our user base." "Only 1% of our users have non-Latin characters in their usernames so it's OK to not support that." "1% of our users are on 3G or slower Internet connections, so we don't have to consider them in our performance metrics."

It's a pragmatic, profit-oriented point of view, but not one that makes sense when your mission is to be inclusive of everyone.

[p2detar]

This is an unfair and a straw man argument, is it not? Are you also unhappy that in a democracy the 51% choose how the other 49% are going to be governed?

Why device attestation is required is quite well explained by this github comment [0]. I am in the industry and I agree fully with it, because it is a fact a problem for most smart phone users in terms of security.

0 - https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...

[Hackbraten]

I think your analogy is flawed. I can be part of the losing 49% and still be entitled to receive the same services as the 51%, whereas people who chose a privacy-oriented OS are essentially going to be excluded from essential governmental services. That's a whole different kind of thing.

I'm not going to replace my 1200 EUR smartphone with a device that forces me to have an account with Apple or Google. I've been issued a German identity card, which is its own computer that includes a digital identity already. I also own an expensive card reader, which together forms a system that is completely capable of supporting any attestation anyone would need. They should just stop excluding me already.

[well_ackshually]

>I' ve been issued a German identity card, which is its own computer that includes a digital identity already.

Then keep using it, instead of the not-mandatory app?

> I also own an expensive card reader, which together forms a system that is completely capable of supporting any attestation anyone would need.

Sure. In the mean time, do we tell the other few dozen millions that don't have an expensive card reader to go fuck themselves, or can we get to work on a solution that, even if not ideal, makes their lives easier?

> They should just stop excluding me already.

They aren't. You said it yourself, your ID is in your pocket.

[p2detar]

> privacy-oriented OS

Well, in all seriousness what examples could you give me here in terms of device hardware attestation? Even GrapheneOS does use Google root certificates to attest your device. There is indeed an option for EUDI to keep a list of keys and I bet this is probably the way they are going to go for Android in the future. We shouldn't forget this is still in the planing phase.

> to have an account with Apple or Google.

True for Google, not true for Apple. Device attestation on iOS does not require you to have an iCloud account or sign into some Apple services. It works entirely using device hardware ids.

> I also own an expensive card reader, which together forms a system that is completely capable of supporting any attestation anyone would need.

Nope. This is eID and verifies your identity, it does not attest the security of your hardware. These are two different problems we talk about here.

[elric]

That's a silly argument, not only because many important changes require a 2/3 majority.

My point was that the government and its services (German or otherwise) should be available to all citizens/residents, regardless of their choice (or lack) mobile device.

[shakna]

If it requires a Google or Apple account, then it also requires those companies never cease an account, either. Or vulnerable people will be harmed.

[nothinkjustai]

> Are you also unhappy that in a democracy the 51% choose how the other 49% are going to be governed

Yes of course. That is one of it’s fundamental issues.

[account42]

And backup software should also remove the "restore" option because hardly anyone needs that, right?

Same here, the government shouldn't build a system where two American mega-corporations have the keys to everyone's lives.

[class4behavior]

There's a big difference between having to run a particular company's OS and being forced to share private data (whether that's merely your DNS requests or your ID documents and full financial history). with said organization.

[type0]

In fact „all“ citizens who are willing to be surveilled by Google and Apple, unless German government provides each citizen with similar eID hardware there won't be any digital equality any time soon. Maybe they should pay to some subsidiary company of IBM (like RedHat) to do this, they already have such a good track record of storing nationality on their machines /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag#Holocaust

[dark-star]

because then it will never get done. There are still people using old Nokia phones, for those there will never be a solution.

The usual 80/20 rule applies here as well.

And if you really are a German citizen, you know how slow the wheels of government already turn in Germany, I assume next week you would be the one complaining that "Germany is so far behind" and that "other countries are so much faster at implementing stuff" :)

[haagch]

Nah, I'm that one idiot who uses alternative open software and just accepts when services aren't offered to me. The older I get, the easier it feels to not give a fuck anymore.

Can't buy any single fare public transport tickets online here in Stuttgart? Sure, I'll use the DeutschlandTicket NFC card. Can't view the EPA? Fine then I don't. Can't pay with Wero? Fine, I don't actually need to use shops that don't offer SEPA Vorkasse or Lastschrift (only without a dodgy "identity verification" fintech startup of course.

[futune]

You are not alone.

[microtonal]

We are not talking about old Nokia phones, but perfectly modern phones like those with GrapheneOS, that can be run on cutting-edge hardware, with a secure enclave, does not use Google Play Services by default, and has a high probability of being more secure than iPhone or any Android phone.

It is exactly the kind of alternative that European countries should embrace to become less dependent on US tech.

I am not sure if you are European, but why people are still supporting the GMS Android/iOS duopoly after the US revoked the Google accounts, Office 365 accounts, credit cards, Amazon accounts, etc. of ICC judges is beyond me. Supporting only iOS/Google GMS Android in a government app basically gives the US all the means to blackmail you and/or disrupt your digital infrastructure.

It seems there are still people working for European governments (including developers) who seem to have missed 2025 and the first few months 2026?

We are repeating the same mistakes as depending on Russian oil/gas again.

[sippeangelo]

Then maybe it shouldn't be done? What??

[abc123abc123]

Yeah, let's burn the witches who care about privacy! Jokes aside, in a democracy, the systems must be designed so that everyone can participate. We manage to do it with voting, with income tax declaration, but for some strange reason, with ID we want to achieve 1984 nirvana, and crush the voices who tell us that the surveilance society we are building is just setting us up for the next Hitler.

[jijijijij]

> There are still people using old Nokia phones

No one wants support for toasters and washing machines. We're talking general purpose compute hardware. TCP is also supported on all these devices. Quite frankly, it's probably easier to implement, if you are not fighting a locked-down OS like iOS.

[Archelaos]

German citizen here. I find this attitude horrible and threatening. You are working on sacrificing yet another part of our digital sovereignty to a US company. There are trillions of better things to do with your life.

[sam_lowry_]

European Citizen here, and indeed lots of people in IT turn a blind eye onto the collateral damage their work may create.

I know someone who happily codes "verifiable credentials" in Elixir, disregarding all externalities.

[oytis]

What's wrong with verifiable credentials? It's an important thing to have it seems? Your passport or a bank card are verifiable credentials, or at least are designed to be.

[sam_lowry_]

It's an EU thing, overcomplicated an not sovereign:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EB...

[oytis]

Oh dear, web 3.0, blockchain. Do we get our sovereign monkey NFT too?

[esbranson]

Verifiable credentials (VCs) are W3C standards and do not involve blockchains. Nor does Web 3.0.

[nip]

In light of all of these shortcomings with platform attestation, why go with the eIDAS 2 wallet approach at all? eIDAS 1 already solved this with Mobile-ID (SIM-based, no Google/Apple dependency) and Smart-ID (server-side key management with minimal platform reliance). What does the wallet model give you that justifies this level of dependency on two American corporations’ proprietary backends?

Especially considering that mobile-ID has been around since 2007.

[Avamander]

SIM-based solutions are on their way out because phones are starting to lose SIM slots. Certifying eSIM implementations to the same EAL level (as Mobile-ID SIMs are) is way way too difficult. At least for one country doing it alone.

Smart-ID sucks. It's not truly hardware-backed, it's proprietary and has fundamental flaws like not having a direct link between the site being authenticated to and the authenticating device (auth can be proxied, just like if it were just plain TOTP).

[nip]

Agree on Smart-ID but the answer is to fix those flaws, not to replace the entire approach with one that depends on Google Play Integrity verdicts that even the German architects admit they can’t fully trust.

SIM-based solutions on their way out is a non-issue. For eSIM to support that use case, political will only is needed: the EU got Apple to abandon the lightning cable, this is not any different.

[Avamander]

> Agree on Smart-ID but the answer is to fix those flaws

Fundamentally can't be, it'd be a whole new solution.

> For eSIM to support that use case, political will only is needed: the EU got Apple to abandon the lightning cable, this is not any different.

Mandate every phone vendor to EAL4(+) certify their eSIMs? I'd love to see that, but I'm not sure that's a viable approach to take.

[nip]

I’m sorry to lash out at you but I keep getting disappointed in European countries (more precisely the ever disappointing EU commission) all suffering of the NIH syndrome instead of collaborating and learning from each other

[ExoticPearTree]

There is mothing to be gained politically by doing this. You think you look good if you say “hey, the Poles had this really good idea, how about we do the same”?

Plus, the process is something like:

- we want to do $something

- hire consultants to help us define $something and produce a document

- hire other consultants to write the specs for the project

- launch an RFP

- select a winner

- wait for the implementation to finish

All the proposed solutions will be something paid, ideally made by a really large company to lend it credibility, and with maintenance costs that justify hiring dedicated people for it.

In the end no one gets what they want.

You think if there was any will wouldn’t the whole EU use whatever the Estonians are doing very well?

[jen20]

> You think you look good if you say “hey, the Poles had this really good idea, how about we do the same”?

Yes.

> You think if there was any will wouldn’t the whole EU use whatever the Estonians are doing very well?

Using the Estonian system would be vastly preferable.

If politics doesn’t allow that, the political environment is broken.

[grundrausch3n]

How is the Estonian system now? I remember when I visited around 2010 our host just had a quite simple smart card reader and could just use it to sign in to government services with their ID and as far as I remember even sign mails and documents. Germany of course could not use normal smart cards but had to use NFC cards with special readers and made the signing feature and additional service you had to pay for on a yearly basis. Of course the Germans system did not went anywhere for years. I do have a reader now and can use it for some governmental services and have very limited appetite to bind the ID to my phone.

[pas]

Ukraine also seems to have solved this pretty well. NFC in the plastic card, selfie video confirmation, etc.

Hungary is also rolling out a "digital citizenship" app. (Also can be bootstrapped via newer plastic cards, so no need to visit the government office.)

[pwlb]

EIDAS 2 motivation is implicitly that eID failed in eIDAS 1. It simply either didn't take off or didn't work at all

[EmbarrassedHelp]

They are also trying to shoehorn in age verification with it.

[mytailorisrich]

Isn't the eIDAS 2 wallet approach a legal requirement of eIDAS 2 (which is an EU regulation, i.e. the law).

[nip]

It is, mandated by the EU commission.

Instead they could have mandated the use of eIDAS 1 to all countries + extend it with attribute/credential support, and let countries choose their implementation (cards, SIM, server-side).

Instead we’re back to the drawing board with the big shortcomings highlighted in this thread.

[mytailorisrich]

Oh OK, I understand your point now.

[ghighi7878]

Tbh, I feel this is stupid.

Banks are giving out QR Tan. Optical TAN devices which work with credit cards and it has been going pretty well. Why can eiDAS not have something similar. Distribute hardware tokens. Get rid of dependency on any OS.

[pwlb]

Banks actually have high fraud rates today because of weak security mechanisms. If attackers steal your money, the bank will reimburse you. If attackers steal your identity, you are really screwed. Security requirements for banking and identity are simply different.

[ghighi7878]

Mobile Google account based is even weaker than hardware tokens used by banks. Make of that what you will.

[ulrikrasmussen]

Please give some evidence that this is due to hardware tokens failing where a smartphone based solution would have prevented it

[GoblinSlayer]

If they use SSN as a password, it doesn't mean you can't have something slightly more reasonable without going full cyberpunk dystopia.

[Avamander]

Plenty of EU countries have rolled out SmartCards for this exact purpose, some are now adding NFC functionality. Nothing really stops Germany from continuing like that either.

The issue then becomes the UI/UX. If the legal mandate is not strong enough the solution will not gain enough ground. You can see this if you start comparing those countries with an eID rolled out.

[omnibrain]

The German ID card (Personalausweis) supports certificates and communication via NFC. I really don’t understand what’s all this about?

[ghighi7878]

This is about what device you use to verify this. Currently, the ausweisapp on android allows you to authenticate to your authorities. However, this can also be done with a TAN generator and a user name and password like banks do.and them you dont need to depend on a trusted mobile phone.

[mariusor]

I'm pretty sure electronic IDs are a good starting point for exactly this. Hopefully they get wider use inside the EU.

[dudefeliciano]

why do you hope that?

[mariusor]

Because there are many interesting uses for having a personal electronic token that's also recognized by your own government. My own interest is in using it as a base for establishing an identity for electronic ballots.

[dudefeliciano]

sure but I don't understand how electronic IDs are a good starting point for having QR TAN or some other hardwarde device. I think OS-agnostic hardware should be the default starting point, not the other way around.

[mariusor]

The electronic ID hosts a cryptographic key that can be used through some sort of hardware device in order to generate QR codes, or whatever that are linked to the user's official identity...

The public part of the identity (which in our example it was enrolled at bank account opening) can be used by the server that checks the QR code to see if it actually belongs to the correct account owner.

[longdidi]

Why not do it right from the beginning?

https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...

[subscribed]

They don't really want to.

[tadfisher]

That "guide" is kinda shit, there is massive work to do for an actual attestation implementation that replaces Play Integrity and supports the various backend frameworks.

[notpushkin]

Just a quick question, and sorry if it might have been answered already... why preventing duplication is so important? I know it’s in the spec probably [1], but I can’t figure out the reason.

And a suggestion: add external HSM support at least? (e.g. things like NitroKey/YubiKey)

[1]: https://eudi.dev/latest/architecture-and-reference-framework... I suppose?

[pwlb]

Preventing credential duplication is a requirement to achieve high level of assurance. One of its purpose is to limit the potential damage that can be done by attacks. If credentials are bound to hardware-bound keys, attackers will always need access to this key store to make any miss-use. If you don't prevent duplication, attackers may extract credentials and miss-use them at a 1000 places simultaneously.

[subscribed]

Okay, but Google certifies phones which are not updates for the last several years.

They can be trivially rooted, then they spoof the signature and get a pass in Integrity while being wide open for malware (or cooying the ID, ID presume).

[pwlb]

The documentation clearly outlines that there are multiple signals being analysed. Relying on play integrity alone is definitely not sufficient as you state.

[subscribed]

Okay, I meant that Google issuing a "pass" is worthless, yet it's being used as a mandatory signal.

[notpushkin]

I’ve just had another, completely stupid but not implausible, idea:

> a local internal WSCD, which is a component within the User device, such as a SIM, e-SIM, or embedded Secure Element,

So you could issue SIM-cards / eSIM profiles that only do signatures and nothing else. The app then connects to such eSIM (and you keep your main SIM/eSIM in another slot).

The less stupid variant is, of course, to get mobile operators to issue SIM cards with e-sign capabilities. Estonia has that, for example: https://www.id.ee/en/mobile-id/

[Avamander]

> The less stupid variant is, of course, to get mobile operators to issue SIM cards with e-sign capabilities. Estonia has that, for example: https://www.id.ee/en/mobile-id/

It works great. Just keep in mind that newer phones are starting to deprecate physical SIM slots. At the same time certifying eSIM implementations to the same EAL level is an absolutely crazy task.

[notpushkin]

> At the same time certifying eSIM implementations to the same EAL level is an absolutely crazy task.

It probably is, but it does make sense. eSIM standards were built to solve pretty much the same problem (make cloning eSIM profiles impossible), so it should be a good anchor of trust for that.

[tannhaeuser]

You must go back to the drawing board and rely on highly-regulated Telecom standards (that's why they were mandated in the first place!) not monopolistic defacto "best practices" you have no influence over because they're more convenient for you.

This is simply unconstitutional and should be escalated ASAP if you don't want to end it before the appropriate court in Leipzig, Karlsruhe, or maybe Luxembourg.

[codethief]

> The initial limitation to Google/Android is not great, we know that, and we have support for other OSs on our list (like, e.g., GrapheneOS).

GrapheneOS uses standard Android APIs for hardware attestation (as opposed to Google-specific ones), so why don't you just use those from the get-go?

[izacus]

They did. This is why Graphene works.

[subscribed]

They said they have GOS support in the roadmap, meaning they know it doesn't work but pinky promise to work on it in some undisclosed future.

[codethief]

Call me confused. The comment I was responding to is saying something different:

> The initial limitation to Google/Android is not great, we know that, and we have support for other OSs on our list (like, e.g., GrapheneOS).

[izacus]

Yes, they still need to audit and whitelist the builds of GrapheneOS. That's what "standard APIs" are - they identify a build of OS, but someone still needs to make sure it's secure.

If you don't want Google to do that for you, then the app developer has to.

[regnerd]

that‘s not correct. Article 5 eIDAS2 explicitly states, that europeans exercise full control over their data. Therefore EUDI wallet must not be a walled garden. Especially if the wallet shall be used for authenticating and signing, it must be available to all europeans, even those sanctioned by the US.

If this is your plan, please go back to the drawing board.

[ibbtown]

Why is a trusted device chain needed? It will put more trust in the potential Chinese device maker and American software companies than the user who's id is shown?

[kodebach]

Simply because the law was written that way. But also the whole idea of identity verification becomes pretty useless, if there is no chain of trust. You could run a modified client that lets you assume any identity you choose, exactly the opposite of what eIDAS is trying to achieve.

[notpushkin]

> You could run a modified client that lets you assume any identity you choose

Provided you know the secret key to a government-issued certificate. Making it impossible to copy said certificate is not really a requirement for identity verification.

[subscribed]

Some countries fixed it already, see Estonian ir Polish IDs with digital layer (performing signing, authentication, etc), and the devices only acting as untrusted interfaces to these.

[notpushkin]

It’s still impossible to extract an Estonian certificate from the smart card (or Mobiil-ID/Smart-ID), no?

[subscribed]

I believe do, I didn't see a successful attack yet.

[subscribed]

But you can run modified client already.

Rooted, wildly insecure devices can pass the attestation easily: https://magisk.dev/modules/play-integrity-fix-inject/

Safe, updated devices cannot unless they permit Google to run their surveillance services in the privileged, unconstrained mode.

[pwlb]

The documentation actually reveals why this will most likely not work, given you are on expert on mobile security

[subscribed]

Oh, you don't say. The above was a link to the source module, but ad with magisk there are many ways to peel the potato.

I've see countless users confirming it works for them, for example by using this workflow: https://magiskzip.com/how-to-pass-integrity-with-strong-chec...

But as an expert on the mobile security you can assure us its not possible to spoof Google play integrity pass with Magisk - am I right?

[sam_lowry_]

Who wrote that law and why, this is the question.

I think we need some fingerpointing that EU officials strive to avoid.

[kro]

It will likely display something like a QR Code with signature anyways, otherwise it's just a glorified passport picture?

Authorities/anyone could verify that it's not counterfeit. And photo should be checked anyways to match the person.

So I also don't see the need for attestation. For ID check it should be ok without. For signing stuff ofc it is not resistant to copying. But EID smartcard function already exists.

[pwlb]

This is necessary because the wallets contain an identity proofing functionality called PID(Person Identification Data). Showing these credentials basically approves you are you. There are high requirements for identity proofing that even pre-date wallets and that makes sense, because the potentially blast radius of identity theft is huge. Historically, these have been secured in smartcards, like eID cards or passports and are not shifting to the smartphone. Verifying the security posture of your device and app is therefore crucial.

[subscribed]

OK, but Google will happily confirm android device running Oreo is safe.

While it's dramatically worse than devices Google refuses to certify (ie these not running their spyware as privileged services).

[oytis]

What do you mean "shifting to smartphone"? It's not a natural process - it's a technical decision to shift them to the smartphone, and a really bad one. We already have smart cards, they work and do not depend on any corporations, even less foreign corporations.

[zb3]

We even have smartcards with e-ink displays and I'd personally want them to succeed here instead of moving security-critical apps to smartphones..

Because Google then abuses its position to inject unremovable spyware with elevated privileges into the phone which the user then can't defent against without making the phone "unsecure" and thus unsuitable for these apps.

If these apps really need a smartphone, I'd at least want it to be free of ad-related garbage in the system. I'm fine with not being able to flash a custom ROM on the smartcard as it doesn't contain hostile software.

Now if even Apple starts showing ads, there's no other choice but to restist this..

[inexcf]

Side question. How come it is always the most incompetent people who get put in charge of implementing things like that. Over and over apps and services are developed in Germany and completely fail at what they are supposed to achieve. Where are these people recruited from?

[vaylian]

Thank you for chiming in.

> We have to use some kind of attestation mechanism per the eIDAS implementing acts.

What does this attestation need to prove? Is this only about ensuring that private keys are managed by a secure enclave or a TPM?

> we have support for other OSs on our list (like, e.g., GrapheneOS)

I appreciate that, even though I am really not enthusiastic of eIDAS. But time will tell. Thank you.

[subscribed]

They won't implement alternatives later, they'll be no point if "most of out customers is using either of the major providers".

Concerning secure enclave - what other device except iphones and Pixels have it actually safe?

[vaylian]

> They won't implement alternatives later, they'll be no point if "most of out customers is using either of the major providers".

It's hard for me to assess the effort needed here, but I guess that the GrapheneOS implementation will be 99% like the regular Android implementation. Supporting both systems does not seem to be that unrealistic.

[subscribed]

But the "regular android implementation" they decided to choose now is not the regular android implementation (AOSP), they're relying on the signal from Google running play store integrity checks.

[Aachen]

The nfc chips in identity documents

[isodev]

> The initial limitation to Google/Android is not great

It’s also illegal on both accessibility grounds as well as violating the eIDAS spirit of no dependency on specific providers.

By shrugging it off as “not great”, you’re also dooming every citizen to have to comply with whatever whimsical terms of service Google and Apple have.

Have you ever tried to unban your Apple/Google account? So in effect, everyone’s access to eID services will depend on some crappy automation some intern in California setup to detect “abuse” or whatever.

There are technical solutions to avoid this dependency and you’re probably getting paid to find, research and adopt them. So … do your job?

[NanoCoaster]

Will eIDAS be the only way to identify yourself in cases where it's needed, or will we be able to user other mechanisms like the german ID card stuff or an entirely separate alternative?

Or to put it another way, is a smartphone required? If not, that would already clear up a lot of issues, I think.

EDIT: Whoops, just saw the answer to another comment asking precisely this. So it's not a requirement. Good. Is there a legal framework that ensures that this remains the case? Otherwise, I fear it will become a de facto requirement over time.

[jech]

One datapoint: at least in practice, it used to be impossible to delete an entry in the French INPI database (trademarks and company names) without eIDAS. It forced me to unearth an old unmodified Android phone (I run LineageOS on my main phone).

If you read French:

* https://www.plus.transformation.gouv.fr/experiences/4531155_...

* https://linuxfr.org/users/jch-2/journaux/l-identite-numeriqu...

[NanoCoaster]

Oof, that's disappointing to hear. Thanks though, that's actually quite interesting.

I'm also thinking of keeping an android phone purely for auth purposes, separate from my main one. The world's most overengineered (and probably also less safe) Yubikey.

> If you read French

Let's see how far my five years of French at school will get me. I'm not getting my hopes up ;)

[Aachen]

Also if you are legally required to be able to use some backup mechanism, it can become the de facto requirement

[utopiah]

> The initial limitation to Google/Android [...] is simply a matter of where we focus our energy at the moment

Nice... so the rush is to delegate power to the large American platform?

[eMPee584]

There's a new initiative by some non-google non-apple phone vendors called *UnifiedAttestation* which I hope you will support at some point in the future:

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Paying-without-Google-New-conso...

[khalic]

It's insane to make yourselves US dependent from the very beginning, at least provide something like a crypto-key that you can get from an official, banks can do it, so can you.

[bakugo]

> We have to use some kind of attestation mechanism per the eIDAS implementing acts.

Sounds like these "eIDAS implementing acts" are the problem, and were influenced by ulterior motives.

[morpheuskafka]

What happens if someone is banned from both companies (even for a very legitimate reason such as hosting illegal content -- they still need to access government services)?

[dudefeliciano]

What about people hosting content that is illegal in the US but not Germany (not sure what that may be now, but with the direction the US is taking maybe in a couple years even the fat Vance meme could become some kind of illegal subversive content). Anger the big daddy and your identitiy is gone.

[jonathanstrange]

Another German citizen here. I think what you're doing is illegal and will be blocked by German courts.

[0x3f]

It's funny because this is also the exact German response for when your neighbour has an unsanctioned BBQ.

[oytis]

I don't get it. Are mechanisms in our ID cards not strong enough so that we have to rely on the security of the operating system?

[gorgoiler]

I know it’s not quite the same thing as an OS vendor, but culturally, if you’re having trouble empathizing with the ick in this thread then imagine if the initial implementation was available only for account holders with Facebook, Yahoo! Mail, or MySpace.

[brador]

Google has banned many accounts of genuine users.

What is your fallback for such an important vital service?

[notpushkin]

To play the devil’s advocate here: MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY on Android doesn’t require a Google account AFAIK. But it might change, of course.

Edit: but as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, Play Integrity is not the only way to do hardware attestation on Android. GrapheneOS devs have a guide: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...

So avoiding proprietary Google stuff altogether is possible and we should encourage it.

[subscribed]

How do you propose running Google play checks on the phone without working Google play? :)

I don't think it's possible. And indeed, avoiding is possible and better, but the companies choose lie of play store "integrity".

[notpushkin]

For Play Integrity, you do have to have the Play Services installed, but that doesn’t mean you need to sign into Google :-)

(By the way, microG, an open source Google Play Services reimplementation, can achieve BASIC_INTEGRITY now, too. Which unfortunately doesn’t help much as most applications that do use Play Integrity want DEVICE_INTEGRITY at least.)

> but the companies choose lie of play store "integrity"

Agreed, very unfortunate. Most apps don’t even need it, but the security theatre is easier to do than actual security.

[chaz6]

Have you considered Unified Attestation [1] which is an alternative to Google's?

[1] https://uattest.net/

[EmbarrassedHelp]

That just puts the power to allow/ban rooting and operating systems in the hands of a different set of companies. Its still unacceptable.

[tadfisher]

Oh dang, this is exactly what I've been looking for. Thank you.

[crest]

This is on the stupid side of lazy (again). You'll still be sovereign only at the pleasure of Apple and Google if you submit to their platform as a service crap.

[oakpond]

Shouldn't the energy instead be focused on creating a standardized eIDAS driver API that OS vendors are required to implement?

[reconnecting]

Humiliating disregard for sovereignty.

[matheusmoreira]

> and we have support for other OSs on our list (like, e.g., GrapheneOS)

Excellent. Massive respect to you for doing this. This attestation business is an existential threat to "other" operating systems. I'm glad to see people are putting effort into supporting them.

[fredgrott]

so I have to buy a Yubikey hardware thingie to keep my Google account just to use eIDAS??

For those that do not know, that is the only way to get the Google account back is to use a hardware 2FA in the first place....

AND yubikeys are $60 per yubikey...and generally you want 2 including a backup

[archerx]

What if I don’t have a smartphone?

[anileated]

No one is required to use EUDI: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU...

Companies and providers (like banks) have to support it, but use is voluntary.

Check out the spec and legal framework, it actually makes sense and is open to different implementations, though you might need to certify it.

[pastage]

You are not required to accept anything other than digital ids. So from experience, whatever demands euid has will be what is required to identify you.

[bschwarz]

If they have to support something that most everybody has they will soon stop supporting alternatives that are not required by law. What then?

[EmbarrassedHelp]

There are attempts make it almost mandatory through mandatory age verification. Which would mean that you'd have to submit to privacy violations or be cut off from a sizeable portion of the internet.

[dudefeliciano]

My prediction is that eventually services for people NOT using the digital ID will be so degraded to be almost useless or seriously disadvantageous.

Kinda like the discrimination DB does for people using paper tickets vs those using the DB Navigator app.

[jahnu]

I wonder if there will be a big enough market for a very compact smartphone equivalent device that can be used just for credentials? A device that is offline on standby except when you need it. Perhaps the size of a car key.

[archerx]

What if it was the size of a credit card and it had stuff like your name, date of birth and even a picture of your face. I want to name this invention an ID card…

[subscribed]

And if you added a cryptographic layer to it, with your own private key baked into it, you could both sign the documents, confirm your identity and the government could confirm it's actually you....

....wow, that would be reinventing the existing model of the leading ID cards....

Crazy if you think about it :)

[Matumio]

If it can go online, I'd prefer to use an android work (or user) profile with only auth apps in it, and nothing else.

As a separate device, it should be offline always IMO, and perhaps the size of a passkey. Or one of those banking devices with a display that show an authenticated text saying what you are confirming.

[AndyMcConachie]

You're screwed. This has been the way for a while now. You cannot exist in society without a smart phone and it's only going to get worse.

[HighGoldstein]

Essential services (banks, government services, public transport) generally still support SMS as an alternative to their mobile apps when there's no completely offline process.

[maccard]

If you can't exist in society without a smart phone already, how is it going to get worse?

[0x3f]

Perhaps you won't be able to exist in private without a smart phone. Or there will be some technology beyond a smartphone that you can't exist without.

[subscribed]

...without a smartphone that is surveilling you 24/7.

Private smartphones are excluded already.

[mrsssnake]

> We have to use some kind of attestation mechanism per the eIDAS implementing acts.

Translates to:

"We have to make sure citized accessing the public service have not control over the device per the eIDAS implementing acts"

[frm88]

With a view on current geopolitics I find it absolutely irresponsible to use two US companies for attestation. The sanctions on ICC judges/prosecutors at the latest should have shown that it is a matter of national security to avoid a possibility of being completely shut down by an unstable US government. How do you propose to deal with people who get sanctioned or banned by Google/Apple for whatever reason? What measures do you have in place so these people can still access their ID?

[ulrikrasmussen]

This is simply unacceptable. You are not making an innocent pragmatic compromise here, you are launching digital infrastructure which initially will tie everyone to Google/Apple and give alternatives a huge disadvantage for an unknown amount of time. Nobody knows when, or even if ever, support for open platforms will arrive.

You should be ashamed of being involved in this monopoly handover to American big tech.

[aenis]

Fingers crossed for the judiciary - if the implementers ignore the intention of the law, then lawyers will have to help them understand the limits of corner cutting - and block this.

[subscribed]

I bet £50 that the alternative (eg GrapheneOS attestation (based on the standard AOSP attestation)) will be delayed, then delayed, then scrapped since almost everyone is using Google Plag integrity anyway.

Yes, I assume malicious intent, sorry, seen this happen enough tines recently.

[tadfisher]

I'm in the US, not facing a mandate, but I want an open-source alternative to Play Integrity to use in the financial sector. There should be no excuse for anyone not supporting GrapheneOS. I've asked on Google's issue tracker and they are not interested in opening the program to non-OHA ("Google Play Approved") participants.

[subscribed]

Indeed. Goggle is very hostile to anyone not wanting Google deep in their OS, running undisclosed code with the superuser privileges.

I think we all collectively should try the compliance / regulatory ways to force enough companies to have to adkit they know Google lies about security when talking about attestation, then force them into supporting alternative attestation methods.

[dudefeliciano]

glad that the "move fast break things" mentality has finally arrived to Germany, just didn't expect the public sector to be the first to implement it

[tadfisher]

Are you interested in a community-maintained alternative to Play Integrity? I work in the finance sector and it's increasingly likely I'll have to implement attestation at some point. Graphene's examples are adaptable, but we need a DB of open Android distribution keys and effective admin to support adding and revoking, possibly something like the LVFS system for Linux firmware.

[Aldipower]

"Not great" is quite an understatement from a European perspective.

We're talking about a state-issued digital identity system, the European equivalent of your ID card, that cannot function without accounts at two US corporations. That's not a UX limitation. That's a structural dependency on foreign infrastructure for core state sovereignty.

The concerns aren't abstract. The US has a documented history of mass surveillance programs (PRISM, XKeyscore) that directly targeted European citizens and governments. Both Apple and Google operate under US jurisdiction, which means CLOUD Act requests, national security letters, and executive pressure are all legal avenues for US government access. PlayIntegrity is explicitly described in your own architecture docs as a black box: "we do not know what they are actually doing in their backend." A critical security component of a state identity system, and you don't know what it does. That's not an engineering trade-off, that's an accountability gap.

GrapheneOS being "on the list" is not reassuring. It means the system launches in a state where European citizens who have actively chosen to reduce their dependence on US Big Tech are excluded from their own national digital identity infrastructure.

The EU passed GDPR to establish digital sovereignty. It's building eIDAS to establish identity sovereignty. Baking in a hard dependency on Google and Apple at the attestation layer undermines both, by design, at launch.

[anonzzzies]

I think it should be possible IMHO, like it is for many banks (still), to get a hardware token and then use whatever hardware/browser. Even a nice EU hardware token which allows banks , govs etc to add their keys/seeds in the enclave would be nicer so I don't have the lug 1000 tokens around, but it's still better than having to trust non sovereign companies for anything without backup; like multiple here said; Google/Apple getting the command from the Dep of War to shut down EU phone attestation, you losing your account etc, or, you know, me simply not wanting to use their stuff.

[ExoticPearTree]

The hardware tokens ate being phased out by banks and replaced with SMS OTP codes + passwords.

Cost saving measures.

Its funny to see that I can access the bank account through FaceID but to actually make a payment I need to use an SMS code.

[retired]

Perhaps look at the Spanish Cl@ve, it works with Linux. It's just a simple digital certificate that allows you to identify yourself.

You can even run it on OpenBSD or TempleOS if you want to.

[egorfine]

> That doesn't work without operating system support

Do you realize where this path is going?

Certain European governments would have greatly benefited from KYC/attestation in the late 1930s had it existed.

[elric]

Yup. But apparently the EU is refusing to take lessons from history.

[gambiting]

Germany is just part of EU - as many other people pointed out, there is no requirement from the EU to implement it this way. Same as California or New York making extremely Draconian laws around 3D printing doesn't represent all of US.

[EmbarrassedHelp]

Why not explicitly forbid the German version of the eDIAS from being used for things like age verification then? That'd solve a ton of privacy issues with the implementation.

[greatgib]

You know that it is how Germany got its darker period when people were just "doing their job" despite being against the good of the population. Without good conscious!

[account42]

The proper response to requirements ruling out an ethical implementation is to not implement them, not to provide an unethical implementation.

[whizzter]

Is this implementation related to the AusweissApp I've seen mentioned before (that reads the cert via NFC from a physical card) or another implementation?

[zajio1am]

Why not just use U2F or certificates on crypto-tokens?

[zajio1am]

Note that for eIDAS 1, a Czechia e-identity provider uses U2F tokens.

[gmerc]

“Not Great” is the understatement of the century. It fails to protect sovereign identity by handing the default to companies not only under foreign sanctions control but who also lock people from their accounts without recourse.

The device chain is a classic misdirection, it seems everyone here is just following Meta’s lobbying to put this into the OS.

Even the carrier layer would be better than the mobile device layer.

Or, you know, just look at Singapore’s or Swiss National SSO - it functions on an app that layer just fine, no issues

See https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...

[amaccuish]

Why the need for a Cloud HSM?

[hans_castorp]

German citizen as well.

So with a Jolla phone and Linux laptop, I am left in the cold.

[nforgerit]

Congrats, this is the stupidest thing I’ve been reading all day. And that includes the orange man’s post.

[ksjfjsmb]

Sich bei staatlichen Dienstleistungen auf Google oder Apple zu verlassen, kommt schon fast einem Verrat gleich. Trump hasst uns.