1. Same problem. There is still no Linux client, for example.
2. It's a different API. Most services specifically require Mobile BankID these days. Desktop (regular) BankID won't work there.
3. Many applications are only useful on the go, such as Swish.
> Access delegation not being part of BankID itself is a feature not a deficiency, it would undermine the concept of secure digital ID if someone else could digitally impersonate you with it.
Different kinds of services have different security requirements. If multiple people live together then it makes sense that any of them should be able to send requests to their cleaning service.
There is also already a clear precedent to allow delegation of access that require strong authentication IRL. For example, PostNord allows you to retrieve someone else's mail as long as you provide ID for both yourself and the recipient. You can issue a Fullmakt which authorizes someone to take legally binding actions on your behalf. Hell, you can even vote by delegate.[0]
Why should those rights not extend into the digital world?
> Instead, services can choose whether they let you allow someone to log in for you.
And they don't, because they are lazy and think BankID has magically solved all of their authentication woes.
[0]: https://www.val.se/servicelankar/teckensprak/satt-att-rosta....
I'm not sure which point you're referring to with the mention of differing API. Mobile BankID is the same API as regular BankID (but services can choose which they accept); as for other Swedish e-ID services, there are aggregator services.
Re: most, really? There are some that don't accept non-mobile BankID, but it is uncommon in my experience.
> There is also already a clear precedent to allow delegation of access that require strong authentication IRL.
Sure, but what does that have to do with BankID itself? Both in-person and online, it is the service that decides whether someone else can act for you. And various services do offer this: I can let others access my tax records or prescription medicine records online.
I don't think it's unreasonable for services to want to know who they're dealing with. In real life, if someone else shows my ID at postnord, they have to show their own ID too.
And therein lies the problem.
> Re: most, really? There are some that don't accept non-mobile BankID, but it is uncommon in my experience.
You already refuted this yourself in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20656033.
> I don't think it's unreasonable for services to want to know who they're dealing with. In real life, if someone else shows my ID at postnord, they have to show their own ID too.
BankID could have designed their API such that "person performing the action" and "subject the action applies to" are different fields.
But even that is unnecesary. Who actually requested the action only concerns the subject, not the third party carrying it out. BankID could simply log "Delegate A requested entity B to perform action C on behalf of subject D" and show it to D, while keeping B completely in the dark.
They have the same service in their app with BankID + QR code (at least for packages).
They could still add such a feature of course, but they would need to inform and have the co-operation of services when someone else is using the ID, so it wouldn't be widely supported.
Person A initiates and signs request to delegate for Person B. Person B receives the delegation request and signs it, which produces a positive response. The response (containing Person B's signature= is then 'wrapped' in Person A's request and is only sent on the to destination.
There was[0]. Maybe you can revive it, since it is a pain-point?
>It's a different API.
Having read the BankId specs, they're "different" APIs in only in how the session is initiated. You're still challenged to enter the PIN for the certificate, which prompts the response to the authentication request. In other words, BankId and Mobile Bank Id are presenting the same exact set of data back to the session initiator.
>Most services specifically require Mobile BankID these days. Desktop (regular) BankID won't work there.
I have, as of yet, to run into anything that would not take BankId or Mobile Bank Id.
[0] - https://fribid.se/
No. This is a problem that was intentionally caused by Finansiell ID-teknik, and I'm not going to get into cat-and-mouse game to fix their for-profit product.
> Having read the BankId specs, they're "different" APIs in only in how the session is initiated. You're still challenged to enter the PIN for the certificate, which prompts the response to the authentication request. In other words, BankId and Mobile Bank Id are presenting the same exact set of data back to the session initiator.
They're different in that a service that takes Mobile BankID does not automatically support the desktop version, or vice versa. Whether the API is similar after that doesn't matter.
> I have, as of yet, to run into anything that would not take BankId or Mobile Bank Id.
Off the top of my head, Swish and Hemfrid only accept Mobile BankID, with no alternate authentication options. Swedbank accepts Mobile BankID or their custom OTP hardware token, but not desktop BankID.
You're - literally - on "Hacker News" complaining about the lack of a product. You were given one that you could easily fix to suit your aforementioned needs/demands and was a principal complaint against BankId but, instead, you want BankId to write the Linux app for you because... ...profits? This makes no sense; especially, when you would already have a hefty baseline of code to work with.
>They're different in that a service that takes Mobile BankID does not automatically support the desktop version, or vice versa.
Does not automatically doesn't - implicitly - mean that it's disallowed. You seem to be confusing the two concepts, here.
>Whether the API is similar after that doesn't matter.
We're - literally - talking about the API being the same because you made it a point that it was different. Either it matters or it doesn't. Pick one.
>Off the top of my head, Swish and Hemfrid only accept Mobile BankID, with no alternate authentication options. Swedbank accepts Mobile BankID or their custom OTP hardware token, but not desktop BankID.
O.k.? We're still in the swamplands of those are problems created by the app developers and not BankId, correct..? I'm not sure I'm following how the app designers' decisions are the fault of BankId...
That's like saying jailbreaking makes iOS respect the consumer. It's a temporary hack that makes it tolerable to use... for a few days until the next mandatory update comes out and breaks everything again.
You won't get lasting improvement without changing the mindset of the powers that be.
> Does not automatically doesn't - implicitly - mean that it's disallowed. You seem to be confusing the two concepts, here.
You're saying service developers can put in the work to support both desktop and mobile BankID. I'm saying most of them are lazy and don't bother. Those two statements are not incompatible.
> We're - literally - talking about the API being the same because you made it a point that it was different. Either it matters or it doesn't. Pick one.
Similar and compatible are very different things.
Then again, this whole subdiscussion is irrelevant anyway, because desktop BankID is still crap for the same reasons as Mobile BankID.
> O.k.? We're still in the swamplands of those are problems created by the app developers and not BankId, correct..? I'm not sure I'm following how the app designers' decisions are the fault of BankId...
If BankID had spent more than two seconds designing their API boundaries then the app developers wouldn't have had to care about supporting both in the first place.
I'm confused: Do you believe that whining about it on HN will accomplish that?
>You're saying service developers can put in the work to support both desktop and mobile BankID. I'm saying most of them are lazy and don't bother. Those two statements are not incompatible.
I am, am I? I thought I was saying that you're being assumptive because that's actually what I was saying: You're equating a potential to an emphatic and it doesn't work that way.
>Similar and compatible are very different things.
Now you're just being obtuse and ignoring the entire premise that they're the same - much less have you decidedly chosen whether it matters or not.
>Then again, this whole subdiscussion is irrelevant anyway...
Then why are you replying to it? I think she doth protest too much!
>If BankID had spent more than two seconds designing their API boundaries then the app developers wouldn't have had to care about supporting both in the first place.
According to you, they did design their API boundaries because they're "different APIs". As a byproduct, they must've spent more than two-second designing it to accomplish that, yeah?
The mental gymnastics you're performing must be tiring. I feel for you, I really do.
I do have to concede that you are correct in one point: The whole sub-discussion is irrelevant, namely because your opinion is obviously in the minority and you can't maintain a static viewpoint on anything so far - except to say "bankid sucks"; which isn't substantive.
If you ever change your mind about fixing your problem, I believe this might help in that endeavour:
https://www.bankid.com/assets/bankid/rp/bankid-relying-party...
Handelsbanken allows both. I think the mobile app is pretty static, however, after you sign in with Mobile Bank Id. I still wouldn't call that a "disallow", more of an intentional UI convenience for users that want #easyMode.
Access delegation not being part of BankID itself is a feature not a deficiency, it would undermine the concept of secure digital ID if someone else could digitally impersonate you with it. Instead, services can choose whether they let you allow someone to log in for you.