I don't like it. Remote attestation is a violation of the user's right to control over their own devices. We should be pushing to eliminate it, not expand its use.

This is the core issue. Remote attestation fundamentally breaks user agency. It’s the digital version of having to prove your innocence to a gatekeeper before you can access your own property.

The consortium model is progress over the Google-only status quo. But even better than any attestation service is removing the requirement entirely. Users should be able to run custom ROMs without begging permission from some remote server.

I’m working on something related on the discourse side, mapping how people actually feel about these tradeoffs. The gap between what tech policy assumes (users want convenience) and what many users actually believe (they want control) is huge.

Open source alternatives matter. They matter even more if they actually work.

How about let me attest that my own device is safe to use? I don't need third party DRM to do it for me, open source or not.

I hate these apps that don't work if you have developer mode enabled. How brain dead stupid is that?

Security by obscurity is a joke

there isn't nearly enough of a strong reaction against this, and i can't say i don't understand why. techbros thrive on influencers justifying enshittification to it's users so why wouldn't that trickle down to open source communities built specifically to spite those same tech bros? i guess i just expected these kinds of people to have more integrity, and be able to tell when a fox is in sheeps clothing. but tech is pretty much nothing if not jumping into the arms of fascism first.

This is highly needed. An open alternative to play integrity is the only way forward. Something so critical cannot be left in the hands of US company.

Isn't checking the bootloader enough?

Watch how the anti-opensource crowd comes out of the woodwork.

Shockingly good news!