Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Is there any way we can make Remote Attestation providers liable for any losses incurred while using their services?"

RA is a use-case neutral hardware feature, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about making providers liable for anything. That's an argument for making CPU manufacturers liable for anything that goes wrong with any use of a computer.

The sort of companies that use RA are already exposed to losses if RA breaks, that's why they invest in it to start with. Console makers lose money if cheating is rampant on their platforms for example, because people will stop playing games when they realize they can't win without cheating.

So what you're saying is, let's incentivize these already incentivized people to use RA even more, and moreover, let's strongly incentivize companies that don't use it to start doing so. Because if you think governments will say "oh, you didn't use the best available tech to protect the kids, fair enough no liability" then you're not very experienced with how governments work! They will say "you should have used RA like your competitors, 10x the fine".




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: