Live data from Hacker News

Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

twitter.com

371–380 of 566 posts

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#371

Hi all! I'm an engineer who worked on this feature. I can't speak to the general concerns about AMP, but I can say that we didn't remove the original url here intentionally - we actually never added it to the Images version. Sorry for the oversight, we're working on bringing it back now!

I’ve been trying to get a straight answer out of google for a while on this, wondering if you can clear it up.

Does Chrome mobile’s “articles for you” section prioritize AMP content along with Google news?

From my experience this seems to be the case. I find it alarming as the only sites that support AMP are often the big clickbait news fear factories. Meanwhile the little sites who never bloated their pages with tracking scripts in the first place end up getting screwed.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#372
post #30

My unpopular opinion. I love AMP. Mobile internet for me ( maybe on worse devices ), was becoming a non-thing for me. AMP let's me check the news again. My opinion might be because I don't have much understanding of it as a framework, but from a non power user perspective, I've found the UX to be amazing.

AMP in part made me switch to Apple News - it's buggy and doesn't respect browser history (major usability failure on Google's part).

Apple News is kind of a meh walled garden of itself.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#373
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have thought the same for year and finally just switched to iOS.

I just switched to Android because iOS is so incredibly buggy. Android is pretty buggy too, but not nearly as bad. I'm afraid we're currently living in dark times for software :(

As someone who switched from Android to iOS and even dual carried for a period of time, I found Android light years more buggy AND janky than iOS. Google still remains years behind there, and I don't see that changing.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#374
post #26

AMP really has to go away, its a MITM attack on the internet. Google discontinues so many services, why is AMP not one of them yet?

The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.

[deleted]

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now every asset you download from the web is a Google tracking resource. Is it really unclear what’s going on? When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. These requests end up being part of the profile built for you which is used for advertisement targeting and content recommendation. PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project?

> When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page, where they were already able to track if you made such a request, since the link you clicked has trackers in it. So from that perspective, nothing changes. > PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project? No, I work on mostly internal infrastructure. My inte…

> You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page

Uh, I keep seeing Google AMP URLs shared on social media, emails, etc etc. Which is quite annoying :(

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#376
post #337
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not how TLS works. A server can trust a client based on the certificate the client presents. A client can't distrust a server based on the certificate the client presents. You're correct; I posted inaccurate information. > validating a cert does not involve the private key in any way. What I should have said was that the server would validate the client cert by checking whether the certificate is valid acco…

Not to pile on, but I think you're imagining some kind of TLS framework that simply doesn't exist currently. It's not clear if you're misunderstanding what exists now, or you're alluding to a different possibility without clearly articulating it. > I guess it's possible for a phishing website to not bother validating the client certificate presented at all Why would a phishing site do anything to discourage a connect…

> I think you're imagining some kind of TLS framework that simply doesn't exist currently. It's not clear if you're misunderstanding what exists now, or you're alluding to a different possibility without clearly articulating it.

It's possible that I am misunderstanding it, but it appears that the point of contention is what the server will do when it receives a certificate from the client.

Ideally, it would check if it's valid by checking it against a CA. So, if someone who manages the server signed the CSR, then the server can validate the certificate with a CA that it manages. If it uses a 3rd party CA, then it would validate it using that.

What I'm not sure about is whether a browser can map a particular client side certificate to present to a server based on the server side certificate presented to the client. If it could, then it would be easy to determine whether one has connected to the correct server since the browser wouldnt' try to present the client side TLS cert to the wrong server.

> Even if the site was impersonating something like amazon.com, Amazon hasn't issued client certificates to all of its users so the whole point is moot.

Which was the point of my original post. If we had worked in making the process of generating and using client side certificates more user friendly, then companies would have done so as part of the account creation process (meaning poeople would use their client cert in addition to their username and password as part of the authentication process).

What we have now is major companies like Amazon using SMS based 2FA that would easily be compromised by re-routing the verification code message to another device since that factor is not under my control, but at the mercy of the phone company.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now every asset you download from the web is a Google tracking resource. Is it really unclear what’s going on? When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. These requests end up being part of the profile built for you which is used for advertisement targeting and content recommendation. PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project?

> When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page, where they were already able to track if you made such a request, since the link you clicked has trackers in it. So from that perspective, nothing changes. > PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project? No, I work on mostly internal infrastructure. My inte…

>You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page

I see quite a few AMP cache results being shared on twitter (for example).

>where they were already able to track if you made such a request..

It's still possible to get raw Google results (with the right extensions/browsers), though I wonder for how long.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I understand correctly, your threat model is "Google will inject unwanted JS into a JS blob they host (like the amp.js from Google's CDN) and this will do nefarious (for some definition of nefarious) things to me without me knowing." How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? I guess you can block some of those, but blocking the jque…

> How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? It's different because it's a requirement. nytimes.com is moving to phase out all third-party advertising data, so presumably they could design their page such that it only accesses their resources. With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to t…

> With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to their site, if they aren't required to load and run some Google supplied JavaScript.

Then I'd direct you to Gregable's comment (who is a person who actually works on AMP) that

> the AMP project is actively working to move the origin (control/host) of the AMP Javascript to the publisher's own domain, as well as allow a version served on an origin owned by the OpenJS Foundation, rather than Google.

So while this isn't supported yet, the people working on it do ant that.

> If we go forth only considering what we think people will do, and not limiting what they can do, we're destined to be upset with the outcome. If not from Google itself, then in twenty years when someone buys Google, or Google sells off a division that houses information, or there's a breach and it's exposed, or some other company rides on Google's coattails and uses the same precedence to get data but is less trustworthy.

I'm unconvinced by such slippery slope arguments, given that the pushback were Google to do something like inject nefarious js would be swift. They've had the ability to do so for, well, 20 years now. They haven't yet.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#379
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combined with that second thing I mentioned (required Google hosted JS), it is total control by Google with no straightforward way for me to detect it, block it or go around it, as I can today.

So if I understand correctly, your threat model is "Google will inject unwanted JS into a JS blob they host (like the amp.js from Google's CDN) and this will do nefarious (for some definition of nefarious) things to me without me knowing." How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? I guess you can block some of those, but blocking the jque…

Today, many (most) sites do not use js from Google or hosted by Google. Google is pushing them to use Google infrastructure by way of AMP and that's the wrong direction.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#380
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as near as I can tell signed exchanges are essentially a caching proxy. With integrity checks, so that you don't have to trust the proxy all that much and its agency is much reduced. I'm reminded of apt. The calculation appears to be that given the chance, some website controllers will choose to trade confidentiality of public pages for better load times. In business terms, this seems a pretty straightfoward wi…

The publishers are not mentioning to the visitor they are adding one more third party looking at your data; one that maintains an ad exchange and will be an intermediary on every resource request. A publisher is free to switch to AMP, but choice needs to be given to the user to agree or leave the site the same way it happens with cookies. I wouldn’t opt in and now I cannot block Google tracking at the DNS level thank…

Publishers can, and should, always make visitors aware of how many third parties are positioned to see all visitor data.

We are, unfortunately, a long way from this being normal. Even as third parties doing things like running CDNs or doing TLS termination for other reasons has been pretty thoroughly normalized. Though offering it as a Firefox extension could be an interesting exercise.

I think publishers view AMP as a question of their sovereignty and choice. Since it's their website that's being potentially served by Google, it's their choice to make. There's absolutely a lot of room to dispute if this is the morally correct stance, but I also think it's not wildly out of line with other questions publishers weigh in choosing what they serve and how.

Post reply on HN