• elouboub@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    The danger would be important entities like governments and banks using attestation. Then you’d be limited to using only Chrome, Safari and Edge, and Firefox could kiss its ass goodbye.

    • kitonthenet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bank: my bank is too boomercore to ever implement something like this, we only recently got 2fa

      Government: my government still makes me file my taxes on paper and mail it to them so I’m ok for now

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Banks and governments could get trapped into this because a third party vendor implements a system for them that includes this.

        Like Salesforce’s “Lightning Experience sites” only supports the latest versions of iOS and Android, as well as only supporting chromium based browsers and Firefox.

        A lot of banks and government services run on that platform, and not all of them are going to be smart enough to pay for a custom solution that increases device support.

        • kitonthenet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s less about what they implement, and more about what their users who have clout expect. My regional bank is far more responsive to customer feedback than, for example, Bank of America. As for governments there’s all sorts of bureaucracy I can push on with not a lot of resources. It’s not accessible to everyone but organizations don’t need all that much prodding to respond anyway

          • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Salesforce dictates what they support now, not on what people want. If an entity implements it, they can use the put of the box functionality or pay to have it customized to increase accessibility, security and support.

    • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      My bank is welcome to implement features that prevent using Firefox. It’ll cost them when I move my deposits, but they’re welcome to do it.

      • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        People didn’t leave Wells Fargo and BoA en masse with all the illegal shit they did, why do you think this would have any real effect on them?

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The EU lets them get away with requiring device attestation for their mobile apps. It’s not exactly the same thing since system requirements for native apps are traditionally narrower than websites, but it’s similar.

    • _pete_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In the UK at least, switching banks is super easy, I’ve done in twice in the last 2 months because they offered free cash to do so, there is enough competition that the banks have to make it easy to move or else they lose customers.

      For government, generally most systems are built to be as accessible as they can be because there has been [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-public-sector-websites-and-apps ](whole raft of legislation) written up to cover this.

      I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a problem (power companies etc could prove to be sticky) but there are legal requirements that entities above a certain site have to meet.