Live data from Hacker News

Google vs. the Open Web

interpeer.io

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#201
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in the meantime it landed to the Nest Hubs ... I think Google will try to abandon Android.

Yeah, I think that's the ambitious moonshot at least for Fuchsia team, and Google might hope it to be realized. But it probably also acknowledges that it's a very unrealistic goal. More likely scenario is to gradually replace some important core systems (including its kernel?) with Fuchsia while keeping the overall Android ecosystem.

I agree. I don't think they can abandon the Android ecosystem at all, I mean all the apps and the store, that's the real value. They could design a migration path for the apps and make them work seamlessly on Fuchsia in the meantime, gradually replacing the ecosystem with the promise of new "shiny" features for developers. Building an OS from scratch is very expensive in terms of resources and money. I cannot see a valid technical reason for this move. My view is that many projects are now using AOSP to build their own operating system and trying to get rid of Google services, which is a threat to Google and its business based on bombarding the user with ads. The biggest obstacle at the moment is getting the applications that rely on Google services to work. e/OS/ uses MicroG and in my personal experience everything works seamlessly, including banking applications. The other crucial aspect is the availability of stores for the apps. Aurora is just an alternative front-end client to Google PlayStore, but it is a huge step forward in removing direct dependency. e/OS/ has AppLounge which does the same thing. I'd certainly prefer to download and install my bank's app directly from a protected area of the bank's website rather than from a generic store. Implementing a custom authentication mechanism (e.g. signed with GPG) and an auto-update feature is certainly doable.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#202
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost never see meaningful detail regarding what is collected and what it’s used for. Is Google’s collection equivalent to Brave’s, or to Firefox’s? I’d be very surprised if there were not significant differences between what is collected here. Comments like this draw a false equivalence between the three.

That's a bit of a strawman since I don't compare the three. I only compare Firefox and Brave. Of course Google is collecting the most data out of those and the tracking is worse, especially since they have other data points to compare it with. However, according to my logic using Brave + Firefox simply must cause more data to be collected than using only one of the two, no?

I'm currently trying out LibreWolf. It is based on Firefox, but with extra privacy and security features. I also installed Vivaldi, also if I am not a big fan of all these extra features integrated : mail, calendar and notes.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#203

This is kind of overblown isnt it? I remember sites doing all sorts of hacks to identify and shut down IE back in the day. "Works best in Chrome/Firefox". "The proposal calls for at least the following information in the signed attestation: The attester's identity, for example, "Google Play". A verdict saying whether the attester considers the device trustworthy. " So a user agent string and a weak attestation? This…

What part of attestation don't you understand? If linked with a OS level signing with keys stored on TPM, it's game over for private browsing. The only thing worse than companies proposing such measures are the useful idiots downplaying the impact. If someone disagrees, pray tell us muddle brains how to bypass this on a proprietary OS with locked boot and tpm stored keys.

>If linked with a OS level signing with keys stored on TPM

Is that listed in the article anywhere? Is that part of the proposal?

The proposal does however say that even if the attestation fails, that the user should be allowed to access the website.

Are you upset with the proposal, or some other proposal that you are imagining?

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#204

This is kind of overblown isnt it? I remember sites doing all sorts of hacks to identify and shut down IE back in the day. "Works best in Chrome/Firefox". "The proposal calls for at least the following information in the signed attestation: The attester's identity, for example, "Google Play". A verdict saying whether the attester considers the device trustworthy. " So a user agent string and a weak attestation? This…

And if the "attester" decides that IceWeasel on Ubuntu (or Firefox with uBlock/uMatrix/NoScript) isn't "trustworthy," but (unmodified) Chrome is "trustworthy," you've just created vendor lock-in. That's not a "nothingburger" IMHO.

The same proposal suggests that users who fail the attestation still access the content. Which is apparently how the Apple version of this same protocol already works.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#205
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. These GitHub protests, while emotionally satisfying, do not work. Google does not care and they are already drunk on monopolist power. Contact info for antitrust authorities: US: - https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation - antitrust@ftc.gov EU: - https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en - comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu UK: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/t…

Please share your template.

I shared the content of an email I sent out to a few different groups the other day here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36888156&p=2#36889971

There were some reasonable criticism that it was too long/wordy hopefully you can adapt and reformat to your liking.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#206
post #129

I mentioned this in the other WEI thread and I’ll do it here again: Instead of simply flailing our collective arms around complaining about an evil corporation, has anyone written to the respective competition authorities (such as the FTC in the US or CCI in India) about the potential anticompetitive effects of this proposal?

My thoughts exactly. These GitHub protests, while emotionally satisfying, do not work. Google does not care and they are already drunk on monopolist power. Contact info for antitrust authorities: US: - https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation - antitrust@ftc.gov EU: - https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en - comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu UK: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/t…

Done! Sent to 3 places. Let’s do this people!

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#207
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. These GitHub protests, while emotionally satisfying, do not work. Google does not care and they are already drunk on monopolist power. Contact info for antitrust authorities: US: - https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation - antitrust@ftc.gov EU: - https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en - comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu UK: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/t…

Please share your template.

Subject: Potential Threat to Digital Freedom from Google's Web Environment Integrity

Dear [Recipient],

I'm writing to highlight an important matter regarding the digital freedom and competitiveness on the internet. Google is rapidly advancing a policy named "Web Environment Integrity" (WEI) in their Chromium browser.

WEI allows developers to regulate browser configurations, which could lead to limiting the usage of free browsers or operating systems. This creates a potential for a web environment that discriminates based on browser usage. Further, this scenario could pave the way for governments and corporations to enforce specific browser usage and could also allow Google to restrict access to their services based on browser compliance.

This practice contradicts the fundamental principles of an open and competitive digital marketplace. I strongly encourage your agency to investigate the potential impacts of Google's WEI and consider taking necessary actions.

Your proactive engagement is vital in preserving the principles that ensure a free and open web.

Best regards,

[Your Name]

Post reply on HN