24
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
24 points (80.0% liked)
Linux
18897 readers
1101 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It needs 'hardware attestation', so a closed set of OS. It would be much better without any age verification.
Thanks. "Hardware" was a good search term. But it's more complicated than that: "[...] SHALL rely on the device's native cryptographic hardware [...], when they are available." Shall means mandatory in the document. But seems someone put a loophole there. So I guess technically it doesn't "need" it?! But I'd also guess it'll be available for 99.9% of users.
I suspect we're going to see more of those hardware backed shenanigans anyway. Several entities are pushing for it. For other, unrelated causes as well. And it fits the purpose because now people don't really own their devices anymore. Which might already be a thing. I recently tried to back up and copy a phone... And, ...well... tough luck. Google is in control. There wasn't much I could do.
The thing is that while the EU standard does not limit hardware platforms, it does not mandate neutrality, so I can expect member states to only implement Android/iOS. In any case, I will not use that.
Hmmh. I think I'd go even further. Even if it was... I'm not going to run government software in some trusted zone of my hardware. I'm still trying to keep Google, Intel etc out... Only properly acceptable solution to me would be if they stop regulating at the specification level. I rather have my favorite operating system come up with the actual software implementation.
That's what I mean. The protocol should be open, so that the software (at least the one running on my host, the opaque smart card does not telecommunicate and is ROM) can be implemented by anyone. No, I would not accept a version that works on some immutable desktop OS with a nonfree client.