[–] 4 points 4 weeks ago

I agree with all the points made in this post except I’m troubled by the conclusion that we should let big tech decide a better solution. That puts the power right back with part of the consortium that was focused as part of the whole passkey issue here. Not saying I know what would be a better alternative but I don’t agree that that is it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    lol it’s all corporate maneuvering to control the narrative rather than address the core issue that will be upon us in a few months. Most all business insurances in the US have sought and been granted exemptions for covering AI-caused risk/damage. It will be very enjoyable to see the first few companies learn this the hard way before major pullback occurs. https://www.csis.org/analysis/insurance-industrys-retreat-ai-threatens-slow-innovation-and-adoption

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Simple, they're oligarchs that made their wealth off the tech industry, and that's about their only exposure to any actual engineering - owning the building and wanting to own the people.

    Talk about a drain on society.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago*

    I think your problem is more to do with how shitty google is anymore more than the technology of passkeys. From a cryptography perspective passkeys are much more secure than simple username/password authentication as there’s no effective way to brute force or acquire through tools like key-loggers. Like another commenter said, start looking at self hosting your own services like Vaultwarden or the like and de-Google first and foremost. One other massive benefit with passkeys is the fact that they are cryptographically unique so even if an attacker acquires one, it’s only able to be used to access a single site/account.

  • source
  • view more: next ›