I use GrapheneOS, but if you as a bank want to gate access to my money via some kind of technology, you better be including it as part of the account.
For example, HSBC continues to let me manage my bank account via the web browser, and continues to offer a battery powered hardware token as the means of authentication.
I let you hold my money, for whatever reason. Why do you expect me to be your distributed infrastructure provider? I am not going to let you require that I run your proprietary malware in order to access my own money.
The idea where you are effectively _expected_ to constantly provide free compute for companies to run their complete garbage on hardware _you own_ just for the privilege of giving them money is one of the most absurd trend in recent times.
I'd say that JS webapps are the same but at least there you run things on your terms in a sandbox that you can inspect and look at the requests, and there's no effective enclave carved out of your hardware (except for EME but that's another topic for another day and I'd be complaining if banks started to use it too).
You might be overthinking it. Most people want to use their phone for convenience, and if an app allows them to remove just one step in their banking activities, they'll probably do that.
As for the second part (separate authentication methods), sure, would be rather problematic if they require you to have a phone, but that's a completely separate and different issue.
Companies tend not to do illegal things. Especially if they’re public or have shareholders that might lose significant value if found out. And it’s borderline impossible to stop people finding out.
Watch what comes out about Samsung TVs in Europe in the next few days.. the companies do mountains of illegal things because everything devices send/receive is encrypted now and they thought they'd never get caught. After a couple of firmware updates and CA certificate fixes for the eMudhra vulnerability, people will forget all about it and they will go back to doing it.
Companies tend not to do illegal things when they're likely to get caught.
The trouble with data laws is that once they have your data, they're the only ones who actually know what they're doing with it. Which means the thing you need to prevent is them having it, which is typically not the thing those laws do.
You can check what data is getting collected (e.g. decompile their distributed app at different versions), and you can - as a government - actually just go to their servers and check what they are doing (with necessary permits and lawful action), or even mandate them to show the source code.
> You can check what data is getting collected (e.g. decompile their distributed app at different versions)
Which only helps if you're trying to prevent them from collecting the data rather than use it for a given thing, which is the thing they're not doing.
As an obvious example, if they keep all your files/messages on their cloud storage by default, they have all your files/messages by default.
> and you can - as a government - actually just go to their servers and check what they are doing (with necessary permits and lawful action)
Which generally only happens when you have reason to suspect they're doing something, which is the thing you wouldn't have when they're the only ones who know that they're doing it.
And even if you do go to look at the servers they have in your jurisdiction, there is no way to tell that the data hasn't been copied to servers outside of your jurisdiction, or what is happening to it over there.
On GrapheneOS you can install your bank app in a different user profile, and run Google Play sandboxed, so this scenario of a bank app doesn't result in anyone having access to your other information.
Android apps are isolated by default. Graphene can do a bit more, but overall Google Play store doesn't get access to your app data. So what I meant is that your banking data is as safe from the store in the app as it is in the browser.
I empathise with GP’s anger. “You hold my money” should be enough of a reason to do all in their power to build great web apps and support alternative OS’es.
I find that banking apps deserve that extra bit of anger pointed towards them. (It’s also increasingly hard to find an ATM in many countries. What are banks up to?)
The thing is, people like GP don't seem to realize that holding their money is not much of an asset to these banks. Like, at all. Maybe no that interest rates are higher. But in general, you're not doing them any favor. My understanding is that holding retail money is a loss leader for most banks. Unless GP is ultra wealthy, they're not doing the bank any favors by giving them their savings or whatever.
Banks absolutely make money on retail deposits, and you definitely are doing them a favor by putting your money in.
Banks do spend a lot on marketing to acquire a given customer, and will then upsell that customer on more profitable products like loans and credit cards. But having a high customer acquisition cost and then upselling is not quite the same as being a "loss leader" (which sort of implies that marginal profit is negative, which is definitely not true).
> which sort of implies that marginal profit is negative
Was it not when interest rates were low, like when LIBOR was near zero? My understanding of that era was that many retail banks were working to shed retail deposits. Holding money was not profitable in that era, especially retail. And today I would still suspect it's not what banks are going for big picture.
In my case, the app offers functionality that isn't available on the web version. So I resentfully use the app, but I'd prefer all features were available via the web instead.
Web banking means you need the card reader gadget as well for the authentication. The app uses secure features of the OS to aid authentication so you don't need to read the card. Web access on your phone still needs the card reader gadget.
Depends on where in the world you are, Norway for instance has not been using card chips for 2fa consumer auth for banking. Instead the 2fa has been a separate code generating gadget, and now also alternatively an app (which I do get the feeling the company that the banks set up handle auth for all of them are kinda pushing everyone into, but for now there thankfully is an option where you only need 1 online device with nothing more than a functioning browser).
It's not the NFC the bank is interested it, it the MFA provided by your phone PIN, fingerprint or face unlock.
When you open the app on your phone, the phone probably needed to be unlocked first, though not everyone sets a PIN or biometric lock on their phone.
Then you will be prompted for a separate PIN or your fingerprint within the banking app. This provides a stronger signal to the bank that you are the legitimate account holder. If your phone is lost or stolen, the chances of someone else being able to authenticate to your banking app are considerably reduced.
With the web app, people will often save their bank website login credentials in the browser. So now someone nefarious only needs to access the unlocked computer or phone the go to the bank's website to gain unauthorised by still authenticated access to the customer's accounts.
Yes, there are now laptops and tablets with biometric authentication, so the potential is there for adding biometric authentication for banking website. However, when you look at the demographics of banking app vs website use, a strong majority of Millennials and Gen-Z do all their banking via the phone app. Gen-X also slightly favour the phone app whereas Boomers strongly prefer the website. So banks focus their development efforts where the majority of users are.
Modern cards and phones support NFC, so you would only need a "gadget" (NFC reader) when using a PC that doesn't already have one, and a USB one is ~$20.
What this really needs is better browser support for NFC:
It's RFID communication with a smart card. The bank would have to transmit keys to your computer to be able to interface with it, which they probably won't want to do for security reasons.
meanwhile in my case the app offers functionality that isn't available on the web version while simultaneously requiring the web version for some of the things
How often do you think companies are in the habit of doing things for your convenience?
Not who you replied to, but requiring me to install your app or create an account is usually going to mean I skip your thing unless I'm really motivated (or forced basically) to use it.
No, I don't want to run any apps, particularly commercial ones. I only run a few FOSS apps like K9, IronFox, Signal, Home Assistant.
I have, on occasion, downloaded and tested apps from the Play Store in a separate profile, and my experience of such apps has been extremely negative. Clearly, these apps don't exist for the user's benefit, and their purpose is to extract information about the user, including phone number, location, other apps used, contacts, etc.
I get that you'd want to protect you data, but that list is a bit weird. The phone number is rarely available to the apps today - you need to provide it yourself typically (SIM feature rather than Android thing), location can be denied, contacts can be denied, listing other apps requires a permission that very few apps are allowed to carry. Typically apps cannot do any of what you listed without explicit approval and it's definitely true for the legit ones.
I use a terrible investment platform that purposefully nerfs the web app so you are forced to use the mobile app.
For something like a bank, I think they ought to be mandated to offer a functional website, yes. A slick app is nice too, but not if it’s the only option, specifically designed to steal my data and spy on me.
HSBC pressure you into using the app and I don't think there is a way back to the battery powered OTP device. At least not that I know in the UK. I resisted until the battery failed and they basically make you go into the branch and then plead why you can't use a smartphone. got sick of this dance after 3 years
Maybe that works in the some countries, but among the 3-4 mainstream banks in my country, making that threat when you are anything less than an unusually high earner by local standards (and perhaps a customer of ancillary investment services) is just going to be met with "Fine, we'll close it then." You might be overestimating just how much banks need any one average person's custom. Also, by local cultural standards, making such threats to a business for the sake of obtaining better customer service is over-the-top Karen behavior, so you have already lost when you do that.
Arch-TK 19 hours ago
I use GrapheneOS, but if you as a bank want to gate access to my money via some kind of technology, you better be including it as part of the account.
For example, HSBC continues to let me manage my bank account via the web browser, and continues to offer a battery powered hardware token as the means of authentication.
I let you hold my money, for whatever reason. Why do you expect me to be your distributed infrastructure provider? I am not going to let you require that I run your proprietary malware in order to access my own money.
The idea where you are effectively _expected_ to constantly provide free compute for companies to run their complete garbage on hardware _you own_ just for the privilege of giving them money is one of the most absurd trend in recent times.
I'd say that JS webapps are the same but at least there you run things on your terms in a sandbox that you can inspect and look at the requests, and there's no effective enclave carved out of your hardware (except for EME but that's another topic for another day and I'd be complaining if banks started to use it too).
oneplane 19 hours ago
As for the second part (separate authentication methods), sure, would be rather problematic if they require you to have a phone, but that's a completely separate and different issue.
aceazzameen 18 hours ago
louthy 18 hours ago
dupdrop 16 hours ago
louthy 15 hours ago
Companies tend not to do illegal things. Especially if they’re public or have shareholders that might lose significant value if found out. And it’s borderline impossible to stop people finding out.
zaptheimpaler 58 minutes ago
AnthonyMouse 14 hours ago
The trouble with data laws is that once they have your data, they're the only ones who actually know what they're doing with it. Which means the thing you need to prevent is them having it, which is typically not the thing those laws do.
gf000 14 hours ago
AnthonyMouse 13 hours ago
Which only helps if you're trying to prevent them from collecting the data rather than use it for a given thing, which is the thing they're not doing.
As an obvious example, if they keep all your files/messages on their cloud storage by default, they have all your files/messages by default.
> and you can - as a government - actually just go to their servers and check what they are doing (with necessary permits and lawful action)
Which generally only happens when you have reason to suspect they're doing something, which is the thing you wouldn't have when they're the only ones who know that they're doing it.
And even if you do go to look at the servers they have in your jurisdiction, there is no way to tell that the data hasn't been copied to servers outside of your jurisdiction, or what is happening to it over there.
LastTrain 14 hours ago
kelseyfrog 25 minutes ago
TFNA 16 hours ago
fsflover 11 hours ago
viraptor 11 hours ago
fsflover 9 hours ago
If you have Google Play in the same sandbox as your banking app, why can't Google access everything there? Or are they in different sandboxes?
viraptor 4 hours ago
greggsy 13 hours ago
louthy 18 hours ago
Do you not run apps at all?
port11 14 hours ago
I find that banking apps deserve that extra bit of anger pointed towards them. (It’s also increasingly hard to find an ATM in many countries. What are banks up to?)
timcobb 13 hours ago
The thing is, people like GP don't seem to realize that holding their money is not much of an asset to these banks. Like, at all. Maybe no that interest rates are higher. But in general, you're not doing them any favor. My understanding is that holding retail money is a loss leader for most banks. Unless GP is ultra wealthy, they're not doing the bank any favors by giving them their savings or whatever.
wavemode 12 hours ago
Banks do spend a lot on marketing to acquire a given customer, and will then upsell that customer on more profitable products like loans and credit cards. But having a high customer acquisition cost and then upselling is not quite the same as being a "loss leader" (which sort of implies that marginal profit is negative, which is definitely not true).
timcobb 10 hours ago
Was it not when interest rates were low, like when LIBOR was near zero? My understanding of that era was that many retail banks were working to shed retail deposits. Holding money was not profitable in that era, especially retail. And today I would still suspect it's not what banks are going for big picture.
fuzzzerd 16 hours ago
hamburglar 15 hours ago
jcsager 15 hours ago
simonra 1 hour ago
fian 3 hours ago
When you open the app on your phone, the phone probably needed to be unlocked first, though not everyone sets a PIN or biometric lock on their phone.
Then you will be prompted for a separate PIN or your fingerprint within the banking app. This provides a stronger signal to the bank that you are the legitimate account holder. If your phone is lost or stolen, the chances of someone else being able to authenticate to your banking app are considerably reduced.
With the web app, people will often save their bank website login credentials in the browser. So now someone nefarious only needs to access the unlocked computer or phone the go to the bank's website to gain unauthorised by still authenticated access to the customer's accounts.
Yes, there are now laptops and tablets with biometric authentication, so the potential is there for adding biometric authentication for banking website. However, when you look at the demographics of banking app vs website use, a strong majority of Millennials and Gen-Z do all their banking via the phone app. Gen-X also slightly favour the phone app whereas Boomers strongly prefer the website. So banks focus their development efforts where the majority of users are.
AnthonyMouse 14 hours ago
What this really needs is better browser support for NFC:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_NFC_API
But so let's do that then.
ChocolateGod 12 hours ago
It's RFID communication with a smart card. The bank would have to transmit keys to your computer to be able to interface with it, which they probably won't want to do for security reasons.
asimovDev 13 hours ago
ifyoubuildit 16 hours ago
How often do you think companies are in the habit of doing things for your convenience?
Not who you replied to, but requiring me to install your app or create an account is usually going to mean I skip your thing unless I'm really motivated (or forced basically) to use it.
louthy 15 hours ago
drnick1 12 hours ago
No, I don't want to run any apps, particularly commercial ones. I only run a few FOSS apps like K9, IronFox, Signal, Home Assistant.
I have, on occasion, downloaded and tested apps from the Play Store in a separate profile, and my experience of such apps has been extremely negative. Clearly, these apps don't exist for the user's benefit, and their purpose is to extract information about the user, including phone number, location, other apps used, contacts, etc.
viraptor 10 hours ago
0c3ca83 15 hours ago
switchbak 14 hours ago
For something like a bank, I think they ought to be mandated to offer a functional website, yes. A slick app is nice too, but not if it’s the only option, specifically designed to steal my data and spy on me.
spidermonkey23 18 hours ago
cowlevel 16 hours ago
TFNA 16 hours ago