RE: https://mastodon.social/@fsfe/116131145887510612

@volla has initiated the industry consortium #UnifiedAttestation for an open-source alternative to Google Play Integrity. That will be a game-changer. All major European OS producers are joining. We have a golden opportunity now to boot out Google.

@vollaficationist @volla Unified Attestation is the direct opposite of keeping Android open. It's an anti-competitive centralized system putting Volla and other companies selling devices working with them in control of which devices and operating systems people are allowed to use. It's the direct opposite of open. There's nothing neutral or fair about companies approving using their products while disallowing others. Unified Attestation needs to be stopped.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116239523775374959

@GrapheneOS Which companies are "disallowed" to partake in #UnifiedAttestation? You have formally and informally been cordially invited. As are any and all other OS manufacturers. Please, let's ease the tone. What about a constructive talk? I believe we should support one another wherever possible and meaningful. Considering the vast market potential, we have all much to gain. Some will choose GOS, some VOS, etc. It's a big cake. Let's ditch Google - unified. Good day!
@vollaficationist Unified Attestation includes multiple companies hostile towards GrapheneOS. They've spent years misleading people about GrapheneOS and making attacks on our team. Unified Attestation gives them veto power over app compatibility on GrapheneOS. It puts them in a position where they can harm GrapheneOS with unreasonable requirements and disingenuous concerns to reduce app compatibility. It's also clearly an illegal anti-competitive cartel and participating wouldn't be legal.
@vollaficationist Unified Attestation is nothing more than an anti-competitive power grab via a centralized service sitting on top of Android hardware attestation. There has yet to be any valid explanation for why this has been created. It would be entirely possible to have neutral organizations certifying devices and publishing those certificates as signed data usable with Android hardware attestation. There's no valid reason to have a centralized service under the control of these companies.
@GrapheneOS This is currently being discussed. Nothing is written in stone. One way is to have an independent third-party highly renowned institution do test and certification. Please consider that UA is still very much "under construction." Please also note that we respect GOS' work, which is why we reached out to you half a year ago.
@vollaficationist GrapheneOS won't participate in any system which requires us to delay our releases while waiting for certification. That's inherently anti-security and is completely unacceptable. We also won't give any companies or organizations veto power over app compatibility on GrapheneOS. It's a horrible idea and we're not going to let it happen. We won't participate and we'll file a lawsuit over the fact GrapheneOS is being banned by companies selling products threatened by GrapheneOS.
@GrapheneOS Will you really? And you didn't Google? Now I'm actually really getting worried about the status of GOS. Well, I wish you the best.
@vollaficationist Yes, we'll file a lawsuit against each company involved in Unified Attestation for the damages done by their anti-competitive cartel to GrapheneOS. It's likely not only going to be us filing this lawsuit. We can work with many other stakeholders interested in stopping creeping authoritarianism in Europe eroding people's right to use whatever hardware and software they want to use. You're working alongside politicians pushing expanded Chat Control. This is perfect for them.
@GrapheneOS @vollaficationist Funny how you don't answer on the Google-part. Why don't you attack them since they control the whole Android ecosystem, making it a mess to anyone to do things different and are pushing to close it even more. Last time you replied you just said Google has more money for lawyers...
@guilg @vollaficationist We've been actively fighting against the Play Integrity API for years. We were making substantial progress in both Europe and India. We've also been coordinating with multiple other companies towards filing a lawsuit against Google. Unified Attestation is an enormous gift to Google helping to legitimize what they're doing with the Play Integrity API. Volla is playing into the hands of authoritarians who want systems disallowing people using arbitrary hardware/software.
@GrapheneOS @guilg @vollaficationist it's an ugly deal that the @EUCommission has made with the tech giants in exchange for #ChatControl and #DigitalOmnibus
@celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission Volla develops not only devices or OS, or AI and more. It's also developing a new ecosystem as well as an infrastructure. Full decoupling. A fully, autonomous communications system. GOS is a hundred thousand miles from this, right. They do googlag-ware and now even Moto, lol.

@vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission And the Volla Phone Quintus is the Daria Bond 5G from an Emirates company (marked up by 560 Euro). Given that Eurowashing, maybe attacking GrapheneOS for using Pixel hardware is a bit rich? At least Pixel has proper device security.

Back to to the original topic. I only have a stake in this as an EU citizen, but having a small set of companies decide who can run what is bad, it's another attack on the freedom of EU citizens.

@danieldk
I would agree to the lower paragraph and add the following thought:
Maybe it would be wise to not let the only companies with privacy in the mind get divided. Arguments ad hominem are not very convincing.
@vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission @GrapheneOS

@khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission Centralized remote attestation is diametrically opposed to privacy, since it makes projects vulnerable to pressure to weaken security & privacy, delay updates, etc.

AFAIK the support for remote attestation that is already provided in AOSP does not suffer from this issue, because there is not a single entity that enforces it (banks can whitelist signing key fingerprints).

So the only reason I can think of is control.

@khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission This is not just a theoretical concern.

Some European countries border on autocracy. Imagine that this initiative is successful. An autocrat could pressure Volla et al. to only attest phones that have a chat backdoor under the thread of banning them from the market.

It is anti-privacy, anti-security, and anti-freedom.

@danieldk
But that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the attestation. That said state could pressure volla et al that only phones with backdoor are allowed in the EU.
@vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission It has everything to do with a centralized attestation system. Once this system starts being adopted, the EU can require it for banking/government apps as they began the process of doing with the Play Integrity API. They can then hijack it and begin enforcing their own requirements such including disallowing encryption without backdoors. There should be no organization in charge of which devices and operating systems are allowed.
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission If companies insist on permitting only certain devices and operating to be used then the system should be one that's distributed around the world with multiple neutral organizations not tied to the companies making devices or governments. However, delaying updates for certification is inherently anti-security. It would be impossible to quickly ship security patches without breaking compatibility with many important apps.
@GrapheneOS
But they, the EU, can do this all along. No matter if there is something like attestation or not.
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Attestation enables them to enforce it. Otherwise, people can import devices not complying with the rules they place on devices sold within Europe. Banning people from using devices from elsewhere is far more extreme and oppressive so that's a lot less likely. It's also far harder to enforce and if things have gotten that bad then many people are going to be unintentionally breaking oppressive laws regardless.
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Being able to take away compatibility with banking and government apps based on a system imposing arbitrary rules with certification required for each release is authoritarian. Regardless of the motivation for building this kind of system, the end result is a powerful tool for a police state. Root-based attestation is inherently anti-competitive and primarily useful for controlling people rather than protecting people.
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Pinning-based attestation is a useful security feature for protecting users and has little potential for abuse to prevent competition and enforce authoritarian laws. Root-based attestation is what causes those problems. Root-based attestation has poor security since it depends on none of the TEE/SE implementations getting exploited with their keys extracted. Not much of a security feature when any leaked key can be used to bypass it.
@GrapheneOS
I guess I don't know enough about THW difference. So you have a link to an explanation?
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission
@GrapheneOS
That's true but essentially they could forbid it, even with higher impact and less success
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission

@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
There was a time for Europe when every decision for half of current EU countries was dictated from centralized Gov in Moscow.

What is the difference where is placed centralized power? Centralization is a problem here.

@danieldk @khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission

germany is particularly nasty regarding anyone speaking out against genocide and 80 years of war crimes by Israel

staatsrason they call it

@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission

1. yes it is, it was a reply to "Some European countries border on autocracy. "

2. fuck off with your policing

3. you sound like that 12 year old school prefect, fuck off

@rapsneezy
Germany is indeed very nasty regarding denying the Holocaust or Antisemitism.
And that's Staatsräson.