The UK government is placing all its bets on passkeys, scrapping SMS verification altogether in support of this new, shiny authentication method. They’re claiming better security, reduced costs, and improved user experience. Sounds great, right? Before we pop the champagne, let’s step back and examine what’s really going on. Are passkeys really the end all-be all of cybersecurity? Or are we just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, confusing the easy answer for real resilience? I'm skeptical, and you should be too.
Phishing-Proof, But Attack-Proof?
As you can see, Passkeys are very obviously better than passwords. Not only do they not require the cumbersome SMS verification circus that all of us loathe, the promise of phishing resistance is alluring. A key attuned to your device, unphishable, a wish list item. Here's the rub: security is never absolute. It's a game of trade-offs.
What happens when your device is compromised? What about key theft? Indeed, while passkeys are impervious to remote phishing attacks, what happens if someone has access to your open phone? Or if malware finds a way to pull the passkey from your device’s secure enclave? We're trading one set of vulnerabilities for another, and the government's rosy pronouncements conveniently gloss over these potential weaknesses.
Now, picture replacing your front door with a suit of armor to protect your home. Now imagine driving with the rear window fully rolled down—it’s almost as bad! So you’ve made progress, good for you, but you haven’t addressed the core issue. The house is still vulnerable.
Centralization: A Single Point of Failure
The government is promoting passkeys as the future, but it’s important to know what they’re building on top of. Despite technological advancement, this system continues the top-down tradition of relying on centralized authorities. In reality, your identity, at its core, is still controlled—just more safely—by a third party.
Libertarian alarm bells are ringing. The world is replete with examples of these centralized databases being breached, hacked, or misused. The more data we have piled up in one location, the more we’re asking for a bullseye on that large cache.
Compare this to the world of decentralized finance (DeFi) and smart contracts, where identity can be self-sovereign and controlled by the individual. Why are we settling for an improved in theory but not in practice version of a bad centralized model. Truly decentralized, community-scaled solutions are already within our reach!
Think of it this way: Passkeys are like upgrading from a horse-drawn carriage to a slightly faster, more luxurious car while ignoring the potential of a personal teleportation device. We’re accepting marginal gains when game changing breakthroughs would work.
In addition to being bad for tech innovation, the government’s focus on a particular passkey technology is bad policy. Adopting a specific standard now could commit the UK to a particular ecosystem in the long run. Yet this decision may stifle innovation for stronger, more seamless forms of authentication in the future. Where's the room for competition? Where is the free market?
Cost Savings or Hidden Costs?
The millions in purported cost savings the government’s basing this on is hugely disputed. Ending SMS verification will cut costs, without a question. What about the costs to implement and maintain the passkey infrastructure? What’s the plan for educating the public on this new technology? What about the more hidden, potential costs of security breach remediation or system failure?
These hidden costs are usually discounted. They need to be there because they tend to disappear when governments go out on a limb making strong promises about efficiency and savings. A real cost-benefit analysis needs to look at all of these considerations. It shouldn’t just be limited to the ones that bubble up the initiatives that look best on paper.
Consider this: the money saved from SMS verification might be spent on cybersecurity insurance in case of a data breach. Are you really saving? Or are you simply moving the money around to other departments?
The UK's move to embrace passkeys is a step in the right direction, but it's not a panacea. We need to be honest about the security trade-offs, the risks that come with centralization, and the inevitable stifling of innovation that will occur. Let’s not confuse security theater for true cyber resilience. Together, let’s advocate for a more transparent and decentralized approach to identity management! We need a new system that ensures people can manage their information and protect their autonomy in an increasingly connected world. Don’t just take the government at its word on this, either. Skepticism is our best defense.
