Comment by o8r3oFTZPE
4 years ago
They want more data/information. Today it is two factors. Tomorrow it will be three. You love your Big Tech. I get it.
But personal attacks are not cool. Keep it civil, please.
4 years ago
They want more data/information. Today it is two factors. Tomorrow it will be three. You love your Big Tech. I get it.
But personal attacks are not cool. Keep it civil, please.
In what sense is it "more data" ? Did you know you can hook up a CRNG and just get endless streams of such "data" for almost nothing? If "they" just want "more data" they could do that all they like.
Earlier you gave the example of Facebook harvesting people's phone numbers. That's not just data that's information. But a Yubikey doesn't know your phone number, how much you weigh, where you live, what type of beer you drink... no information at all.
The genius thing about the FIDO Security Key design is figuring out how to make "Are you still you?" a question we can answer. Notice that it can't answer a question like "Who is this?". Your Yubikey has no idea that you're o8r3oFTZPE. But it does know it is still itself and it can prove that when prompted to do so.
And you might think, "Aha, but it can track me". Nope. It's a passive object unless activated, and it also doesn't have any coherent identity of its own, so sites can't even compare notes on who enrolled to discover that the same Yubikey was used. Your Yubikey can tell when it's being asked if it is still itself, but it needs a secret to do that and nobody else has the secret. All they can do is ask that narrow question, "Are you still you?".
Which of course is very narrowly the exact authentication problem we wanted to solve.
Who created that "problem we are trying to solve". It wasn't the user.
If the solution to the "problem" is giving increasingly more personal information to a tech company, that's not a great solution, IMO. Arguably, from the user's perspective, it's creating a new problem.
Most users are not going to purchase YubiKeys. It's not a matter of whether I use one, what I am concerned about is what other users are being coaxed into doing.
There are many problems with "authentication methods" but the one I'm referring to is giving escalating amounts of personal information to tech companies, even if it's under the guise "for the purpose of authentication" or argued to be a fair exchange for "free services". Obviously tech companies love "authenticating" users as it signals "real" ad targets.
The "tech" industry is riddled with conflicts of interest. That is a problem they are not even attempting to solve. Perhaps regulation is going to solve it for them.
> Who created that "problem we are trying to solve". It wasn't the user.
Sure it was, if you didn't want this problem you'd be fine with remaining anonymous and receiving only services that can be granted anonymously. I understand reading Hacker News doesn't require an account, and yet you've got one and are writing replies. So yes, you created the problem.
Now, Hacker News went with 1970s "password" authentication. Maybe you're good at memorising a separate long random password for each site, and so this doesn't really leak any information it's just data. Lots of users seem to provide the names of pets, favourite sports teams, cultural icons, it's a bit of a mish-mash but certainly information of a sort.
In contrast, even though you keep insisting otherwise, Security Keys don't give "escalating amounts of personal information to tech companies" but instead no information at all, just that useful answer to the question, "Are you still you?".
4 replies →