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.
Google vs. the Open Web
201–207 of 207 posts
Re: Google vs. the Open Web
#202Earlier 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?
Re: Google vs. the Open Web
#203This 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.
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
#204This 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.
Re: Google vs. the Open Web
#205Earlier 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.
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
#206I 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…
Re: Google vs. the Open Web
#207Earlier 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.
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]