Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
1–10 of 484 posts
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#2Sounds crazy.
But a possible way to defeat it is what I do now --- keep two devices. One that meets their requirements for cases where it is absolutely needed and another for everything else.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#3This sounds like the final death blow to the web as a useful platform for anyone who isn't a corporation.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#4Be Evil™
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#5See also previous discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817305 (the same link mentioned in the article)
It's honestly good for this to get a lot of attention though, I'm happy to see additional commentary on it getting shared.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#6Google seems to be escalating the speed of its efforts to restrict its user base to the completely non-technical, but Apple and Facebook already own that market.
It also sounds like they're promoting yet another way to make "the internet" slower, more bloated, and have greater impediments to usage.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#7Seems like this is going to get a lot of pushback. It might not go through. But remember whether it goes through or not isn't the important thing. The fact that Google wants it to is what matters.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#8Sounds crazy. But a possible way to defeat it is what I do now --- keep two devices. One that meets their requirements for cases where it is absolutely needed and another for everything else.
All well and good, until the number of websites that refuse to work without attestation starts inexorably creeping upwards, year after year.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#9Sounds crazy. But a possible way to defeat it is what I do now --- keep two devices. One that meets their requirements for cases where it is absolutely needed and another for everything else.
The cases where your locked device is absolutely necessary will approach 100%.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#10See also previous discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817305 (the same link mentioned in the article) It's honestly good for this to get a lot of attention though, I'm happy to see additional commentary on it getting shared.
It's good that it's happening strong & still semi-early-ish.
I'd be curious to know how or if Chrome actually manages the PR around their work. Chrome lead fired off a blog post So you don't like a web proposal which effectively says it's purely a technical decision, and that only constructive technical criticism is regarded at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36818409 https://blog.yoav.ws/posts/web_platform_change_you_do_not_li...
But I don't feel like Google has the luxury of letting it's image burn like this. TURTLEDOVE is already a huge semi-sound but immensely scary change, MV3 is a disaster of high order and hasn't responded with anything but a stream of bandaids to challenges like Mozilla's far more capable Background Pages proposals. But I think the reputation damage here is vastly higher, as there's basically nothing being offered here to most users, or, if this spec goes through, ex-Web users. This effort is just an abominable horror show, and at some point, it feels like Google/Chrome have to stop being so blinders-on as to treat this as a merely technical discussion.
The last time these debates went down, where there was an incredibly contentious spec that got shipped, it basically took the Web creator Tim Berners-Lee using his w3c authority to stamp "ship it" on the spec. https://www.techdirt.com/2017/03/01/tim-berners-lee-endorses...