Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

howtogeek.com

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#101

I find the page visibility API, supported by every browser including Firefox, just as creepy. Perhaps even more, since most users don't know it exists and gave no permission for it to operate. Websites have no business knowing if I'm looking at them or not, and making assumptions about what I want them to do when I'm not. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Page_Visibi...

Interestingly, this API is one of the tools Youtube uses to stop you from playing videos in the background on mobile.

Here's an old thread about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21244440

It's obvious when you the Page Visibility API original editors/authors: https://www.w3.org/TR/page-visibility-2/

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#103
post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#104
post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse…

If the feature only tracks idleness when the user has been appropriately asked, then why care? It sounds like you're just worried instead by a potential future version that works with a completely different permission model and use-case. I don't think that's any more useful to worry about than "what if Google decides to just send someone a virus with their auto updates?" (well ok, maybe that's kind of interesting to worry about but it's not especially related to this API).

>I don't think it's paranoid to assume nefarious intent because web devs weren't asking for this functionality

I use chat webapps occasionally like Discord and it would be very useful there. Right now I usually use the desktop application which is basically a wrapper around the web app with a few more abilities like idleness tracking. It would be nice if the web app could have that functionality so I don't have to run an unsandboxed executable on my computer with access to all my files just for it.

>nor was it impossible before. You add a mouse listener to the page, you check document.hidden, etc.

That only tracks idleness within the current tab, not the whole device. For chat applications that difference is important.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#105
post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse…

Feel free to block updates and enjoy security vulnerabilities. Or better yet just build your own version if chromium

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#107
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So after 20 minutes instead of logging you out the away status is set. Not sure I understand your special case here.

Can't speak for the other commenter, but I'm "available" when I sit at my computer playing Civilization for 6 hours, despite the fact that I won't touch my IM application that entire time. If you're trying to set "Away" based on how often I interact with the application, you're getting it wrong for 5 hours and 40 minutes of that period.

In this case the Chrome setting would also mark you as away. I'm not sure what your argument is.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse…

Feel free to block updates and enjoy security vulnerabilities. Or better yet just build your own version if chromium

Or switch browsers.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#109
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. It really isn't. Some time look at the permissions controls in Chrome. https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 Most of these toggles will pop up a permissions dialog. Trigger enough of those, and the user will either dismiss them automatically or accept automatically.

I don't understand what you're saying. It absolutely is behind a permission prompt. If you go to the demo site: https://idle-detection.glitch.me/ and click "ephemeral", it shows a prompt next to the address bar saying "idle-detection.glitch.me wants to know when you're actively using this device" and has buttons for "block" and "allow". So I don't know how "it really isn't" could be true in this case.

What I mean is that there is/will be a permission fatigue

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#110
post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse…

google’s catch phrase was something about not being evil, pretty sure that saying is bogus now and has been bogus for a long time. it really seems like they’ve been siding with some highly questionable practices and no official is gonna step in and check them, especially if a government can benefit by passing laws that force google to hand over the keys/info. it’s kinda sick how much we are engulfed with this stuff lately
Post reply on HN