There are two ways this ends up:

The future where everyone has to carry around a black box computing device controlled by its manufacturer and the privileged creators of the apps you’ve been allowed or compelled to install on it. The present state of iPads/iPhones and to a lesser extent Android phones make this future feel incredibly close.

But the future where everyone carries around an incredible communication and calculation tool that acts as an agent for them and expands every individual’s capabilities feels only just slightly out of reach.

The line dividing the two futures is thin and technical in nature. This leaves us with a tricky situation where most people wouldn’t be able to distinguish which they’re headed towards, or even which they’re living in. All I can do is hope that either legal tides go my way and grant users control over their computers (phones) by force, or that somehow tech literacy rises and people demand control.

I do think society needs to take a proactive role in deciding how it wants to interact with technology though. There’s a certain laissez faire, almost defeatist attitude that you see from a lot of the tech crowd, that goes something like “technology will do what it does, and it will change our lives how it sees fit, and we are powerless to stop it.” But if that was the case, we couldn’t have gun control laws, or environmental protection laws, or restrictions on nuclear technology. Technology may continue to develop, but it’s still up to us how we choose to use it.

I too see this attitude from technical people. To be clear: I do not hold it. Like you say, I favor regulation in the vein of gun control, environmental protection, etc. Left alone the tech market will consolidate and rob users of as much power as possible; it is simply the most profitable way of doing business.

To be more specific: I am a proponent of bills like S.2710 - Open App Markets Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...), which among other things requires operating systems to "... allow and provide readily accessible means for users of that operating system to ... install third-party apps or app stores through means other than its app store". Though I would also want additional provisions, like not allowing OSes to reserve special privileges for first-party or blessed third-party apps, eg iOS restricts third-party apps from running JIT code, preventing browser competition on the platform.

The problem is that people want short term gain and don't see the long term loss.

Regulation won't happen for technology, the government doesn't really have an incentive.

They are already spying on anyone so they don't need anything else. Gun control regulations are great to make people more reliant on the government and environmental protection laws are great for charging extra taxes; what would a "less technology" regulation accomplish? Nothing, it would be counterproductive.

The government wants you to ping you every phone cell you go nearby to.

You don't even need cellphones. Just issue people hard to forge documentation and set up checkpoints. It's the difference between a fence and a shock collar.

Your dream seems to be to set up the infrastructure for universal command and control, then expect it to choose to regulate itself.

I don't think I said anything of the sort. Just because something is electronic doesn't mean it's centralized and restrictive. My dream is one where technology is an empowering tool accessible to anyone and I'm all for regulation to prevent monopolies or cartels from imposing self-serving "standards" that block out competitors and force people into walled gardens. You seem mostly concerned about authoritarianism. I propose that so long as users are in control of their computers then computer ownership will have a net-positive impact on general freedom. If users do not control their computers then they will have a net-negative impact on freedom. So the crucial aspect is not whether or not phones/computers become required for daily life, but whether users have control over them.

Even moreso, there are a growing number of stakeholders and even entire business segments, which require locked-down devices for their activities: The entire business of streaming services only works because they get to place an opaque black box in users' homes and can dictate arbitrary rules and constraints for playback.

The entire app ecosystem is only economically viable because the devices make it impossible (iOS) or really inconvenient (Android) to install apps without paying for them. Also, the devices give the user no way to modify the apps, so developers can implement whatever hostile logic they want and users have to put up with it. The ability to do that is a major appeal locked down platforms have for businesses.

(IMO, the imagination of far too many people in the industry is already running wild with all the kinds of crazy rules, restrictions and "business models" you can implement on locked down devices.)

I think we should reverse this trend and install some actual computer literacy in larger parts of society before we make computers mandatory for everyday life - otherwise, the whole thing will end in a dystopia.

No they're not! You need either a desktop or a laptop or a tablet or a smartphone, but you don't need more than one.

I'm okay living in a world where everyone needs access to some type of computer, in the same way that everyone probably needs access to some type of writing utensil. However, people should be able to choose the form factor that lets them live their best life.

Especially when one particular form factor leads to surveillance of your location.

This is not a form factor result, it's a result of a function.

If you want to have internet access without being near internet AP, you have to accept surveillance. This applies equally to phone, or tablet with SIM card, or laptop with external 3G modem.

If you are OK with only accessing internet in specific location, you can turn off cell subsystem in your phone -- this functionality is present in every phone I have seen.

(Same applies to bluetooth, wifi and other ways to track device remotely)

Not to mention that old people is suffering (at least here in Spain) a lot because services push everyone into apps etc.

I cancelled my fathers bank account for this very reason and moved him to a credit union. It was painful but their customer support was so awful that it was worth it.

The last straw was that they told him he couldn't do a money transfer from his local office but he had to use a mobile app. He called me to help him with that. That got me angry.

(I don't love using the word "addictive" here because phones are not chemically addictive, but any other term makes the point less clear.)

That is true in practice, but not true in theory. There are urban WiFi networks that already operate without spying on the users. Nothing prevents mobile networks from being applied in the same way on a technical level.

In fact when you're using a mobile network, you are near an internet AP in the form of a cell tower. Taking 5G NR, you even have to be nearer to it than you would be to your WiFi AP.

Surveillance is not a result of form factor or function, it's a result of social organization.

Some people don't want any technology at all. What happens to them in your future?

This has gone off on a weird tangent; the article is about how a new standard can greatly simplify account passwords, the very hardest and frustrating thing about modern life on the web.

Changing that into "we shouldn't have any rich if we don't want to" is a strange reaction to making tech more accessible. But perhaps if one wants to eliminate tech from people's lives then making tech as bad and painful as possible might be one way to do that; but it seems like a foolish way to pursue that goal.

I am 100% in favor of giving people the option to log in with their phone instead of a password, if they want to. If that's all the article meant, I stand corrected.

But, I got the impression that the people quoted in the article were working to eventually remove passwords as a method of authentication. That's not cool, because it requires users to have a secondary device.

I don't think my impression was entirely unreasonable, because we're already seeing it in the number of websites forcing users to set up two factor authentication. Note that many of these so-called "two-factor" solutions allow the user to reset their password using only their phone (which is what really makes SIM-swapping such a problem), which means your password is effectively optional, but a phone is required.

That's a shame. They must get very cold in the winter without the ability to build a fire.

I grew up without any of this mobile or home computing technology, and I don't see anything essential today that I cannot do without it. It's all about convenience.

Having something you know (a password) is more secure because something in your memory that you don't share can't be taken from you by any means. Passwords aren't perfect (you can be tricked into sharing it, or tortured into giving it up) but there are solutions for being forced to hand over a password, and neither tokens or biometrics solve the problem of people being tricked.

No one can murder you in an alley, and drag your lifeless corpse to an ATM and clean out your bank account because the murderers have your face, and fingerprints, even your cell phone, but not your pin. Good security should always require a secret that you know.

Not having a password would be fine for logging into low risk sites like this website, where at worst someone might get your account banned or post comments under your username, but any site or transaction where the risk is greater should just always require a password.

Not necessarily. The specific implementation being talked about in the article is to use your phone as your FIDO device, and your phone has to be unlocked. So the "something you have" is your phone, and to unlock it, you can either use "something you are" (biometrics via face ID or fingerprint), or you can have a PIN/password on your phone to make it "something you know".

I wouldn't be surprised (and I would hope) that the FIDO app or feature on phones would also come with the ability to restrict it via PIN/password even if your phone unlocks via biometric.

The dream of a life without passwords sounds great, but I don't think FIDO can get us there and if it can't, we have to think about whether or not the extra convenience we can get from FIDO is worth what it would cost us in terms of all the data and control we'd be handing over to 3rd parties.

> Something you have can be easily stolen, and biometrics cannot be kept secret, can be forged, and can't be reset/changed once compromised.

Something you have can easily be stolen as long as someone is able to access it. Someone on the other side of the world is not going to be able to steal your USB token from the comfort of their own bedroom, just as they're unlikely to get your biometrics.

A password exists in your memory, yes, but it also exists in the databases of untold numbers of corporations, each with different levels of security, and at least some of those corporations duplicate copies of those databases across different data centers throughout the world. These databases can essentially be accessed by anyone, anywhere.

I understand what you're saying, but you're forgetting that passwords, by nature, have to exist somewhere other than your head, guarded by someone other than you.

> passwords, by nature, have to exist somewhere other than your head, guarded by someone other than you.

What? That’s simply not true. Passwords are only stored in your head and anywhere you explicitly write them down for safekeeping (like a password manager). Services do not need a copy to validate your password, and should never store one. They only need a salted hash to confirm if the password you input was correct. Such a hash is irreversible without an attacker randomly guessing your password through brute force, which is beyond impractical for any decent password.

>Services do not need a copy to validate your password, and should never store one.

"Do not need" and "should" are the key words here. Users don't know how a site stores passwords, we have to trust them to use strong encryption when it comes to hashing, and to not store it in plaintext.

With any authentication system you do have to trust the server you’re accessing to identify you correctly. Take FIDO: sure, in theory someone would have to be close to you to steal the “thing you have”, but if the service you’re authenticating with doesn’t implement the protocol properly or is hacked, then attackers may be able to access your account without being anywhere near you.

All authentication schemes offer benefits only if implemented correctly.

True, and better security systems take advantage of that by combing all three. For me to log into work I have to use a password (what I know), use a hardware token (what I have), and be logging in from a location where they'll expect me to be (what I am). All of those things have their flaws, but the odds of someone managing to pull off all three are much less likely.

As the use of biometrics increases we'll see more examples of that data being collected stolen and and shared around the world. Right now, it's not used often enough for criminals to bother passing around scans of your fingerprints, or photos used to spoof facial recognition, but it's bound to happen.

> I understand what you're saying, but you're forgetting that passwords, by nature, have to exist somewhere other than your head, guarded by someone other than you.

As others have said, they shouldn't. We have to expect failures and breeches, which is why it's so important that we have those other two pillars to fall back on when "what we know" fails us.

Perfect is the enemy of the good. FIDO is better than just passwords. That’s what it’s replacing. You can keep using triple-factor authentication if you want to.

Perfect is the enemy of the good, and perfect security cannot exist. FIDO is perfectly fine for some things. For anything actually important and worth protecting it's a step in the wrong direction and even worse it's being pushed for by groups who want to increase their ability to collect your data and control you.

Again, FIDO isn't terrible in all cases, but there is certainly a push to get people to use it for things that should be more secure. I think they're hoping that with enough convenience we'll all just go along with it and start handing over so much more of our personal data and give all these companies so much more power over our lives. Maybe they're right too and we will, but I think our security will be worse off for it. We should be thinking about what specific applications FIDO is useful for and where it's best avoided, as well as exactly what we're getting in exchange for all that we'd be giving away.

It feels weird to encounter resistance to FIDO on HN of all places. The biggest complaint about FIDO is that is has rolled out to slowly, not that it is in any way inferior to our horrendously insecure web dozens of accounts secured by a weak human memorizable password, or worse reused passwords.

Passwordless is better because you aren’t storing a phishable password on a server.

Yes, I know uses FIDO under the hood. But the there are very few ELIA5's for FIDO either. One's that start with "It starts with a super secret private key the FIDO device creates and never leaves the device, so no one ever can learn it. In fact, the security and cost effectiveness of the system rests on the fact that it's near impossible to extract that secret from a piece of cheap silicon. The system works because it's possible for the device to prove it knows that one thing only it could know, without ever revelling what the secret is. ..." From there it goes on to explain the techniques use to ensure despite using the same secret for every server, no two servers (from different domains) will know the same key was used to log into each. And on it goes with mutal auth, and immunity to MITM attacks and on and on. Now I think about it, maybe 5 is a little too young.

Then people say disturbing things about Passkey, like https://www.hanko.io/blog/on-passkeys : "Passkeys = (synced) WebAuthn credentials". Hang on. Is that saying this super secret key never escaped the FIDO token is now synced???

And were is this super secret key stored on the phone? Storing it in a hardware token that receive a backdoor'ed firmware upgrade is one thing. Storing it in a device that accepts firmware upgrades, when governments such as Australia's have passed laws allowing them to compel manufacturers to backdoor firmware upgrades is quite another. But storing that secret on an Android or iOS phone, that are so complex they have proved impossible to make them secure, which we know because many can still be root'ed today - surely that's insanity?

But who knows maybe that's all been thought of and mitigated. Given Google's involvement, that almost seems likely. But you could never learn if it was true from dumbed down to the point of uselessness "hey! we've invented (ye another) replacement for passwords" press releases I've seen so far.

I also usually carry my passport as a backup though that probably won't work if I need to rent car--and on that particular trip it was a last minute overnighter so I didn't throw in my backup documents and cards folder. It took me about half an hour to convince the hotel to let me check in.

In general, I hate traveling with things that you really can't afford to lose and can only mitigate against loss to some degree.

This could be resolved using a FIDO enabled NFC sub-dermal implant.

The simple fact there no guaranty of safety that can be made about such a system despite its obvious consequences about tracking, power and control should alone be a red flag.

When I read such a comment, I can't help but think school should make kids read more science fiction. Many authors covered why something like this is a dangerous idea.

I'd go even farther, but I would reach the Goodwin point.

I have a password manager, protected by a strong, unique, randomly-generated master password that I took the time to commit to memory. I cannot ever loose this password, and as long as I have it, I can get into my vault. As long as I can get into my vault, I have access to my other passwords.

An increasing number of web services have decided this is insecure, and are forcing me to use secondary devices in order to authenticate myself. This does very little to increase my security, while putting me at risk of getting locked out of essential resources.

I'm all for alternate options, but please don't take this setup away from me!

I basically need to port this number to a cheaper carrier and cover the cost…forever

Although I agree with you, it is not realistic.

Do you think kids who are 3 right now will feel the same when they are your age?

Reminds me of the US General who, in WW II, insisted cavalry still had a place in warfare. Can’t remember his name.

anyway the point is not to go back to soldiers riding horses, but to not reduce the authentication options, because it also reduces security.

After all we still use keys to unlock doors and not our phones (because it would be stupid)

"In 1945 Herr wrote that conversion of cavalry to armor was a mistake, an act of "robbing Peter to pay Paul": expansion of armor was necessary, but not at the expense of horse units."

...

"even in 1942 he still struggled for the horse, requesting Marshall for "an immediate increase in horse cavalry."

...

"He enforced a formal policy that any increase in mechanized forces must be preceded by a proportional increase in horse cavalry; as a result the 7th Cavalry Brigade remained the only mechanized unit until 1940. Later, he had to admit the rising power of armor, but was just as unwilling to dismount his troops.

After the outbreak of World War II Herr followed the European campaigns through attaché reports that reinforced his belief in superiority of cavalry tactics. His chief of staff Willis D. Crittenberger pre-screened these reports and jotted "cavalry mission" in the margins to attract Herr's attention.[16] Herr's own interpretation of the intelligence was biased in favor of the horse. He believed that the Wehrmacht relied on horses because of German operational doctrine when, in fact, it was a purely economic decision.[6] He wrote that other Western European armies dismissed the horse because of shrinking horse and forage stocks; the American situation, according to Herr was more akin to Poland or the Soviet Union, which still kept sizable horse formations.[15] He assessed blitzkrieg as a "typical cavalry mission" and suggested expanding the 7th Cavalry Brigade along German panzer division standards, under full Cavalry control.[17] The proposal, delivered at the War College in September 1939, was bundled with the demand that new armored units should be formed from scratch rather than converted from horse troops.

In the first half of 1940 Herr embraced the concept of "horse-mechanized formations" and called for expansion of cavalry brigades into divisions. He alienated George Marshall by insisting that mechanization should be an expansion of existing cavalry troops, rather than their replacement.[19] He publicly rallied for more horse units through Cavalry Journal publications,[15] and brought further tension inside his troops by asking each cavalry officer to choose his side: either for horse cavalry, or for mechanization. According to Bruce Palmer Jr., the request forced officers of all grades to "cut their throats professionally": they had to bet their careers on obsolete war technology, or risk immediate repercussions from their Chief."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knowles_Herr#Chief_of_Cav...

That purpose wasn't doing pike-and-lance charges into panzer lines. Just like most motorized units, WWI and WWII cavalry didn't fight from horseback - it would use horses to get to where they were going to fight, and dismount to fight.

The Eastern Front had a lot of terrain that was not conductive to wheeled travel.

Cavalry is also far more cost-efficient at hunting down partisans, and terrorizing civilians. It doesn't need petrol, you can just steal horsefeed directly from the people you are occupying.

Cavalry still had a huge role to play in WW2. You didn't ride them into battle (you didn't do that in WW1 either), but they were used for transport. Germany and Russia used 6 million of them.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

It was Maj Gen John Herr:

1 point by TedDoesntTalk 7 minutes ago | root | parent | next | edit | delete [–]

It was Maj Gen John Herr:

"In 1945 Herr wrote that conversion of cavalry to armor was a mistake, an act of "robbing Peter to pay Paul": expansion of armor was necessary, but not at the expense of horse units."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knowles_Herr#Chief_of_Cav...