Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your computer should say what you tell it to say

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#221

Post by boring_twenties »

hot_gril wrote: post #38
tapoxi wrote: post #10

I mean, devil's advocate here, this tech already exists and the question is do we do client attestation in a browser or pretend remote attestation doesn't exist. If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app? I'm not trying to argue in favor of WEI, I just think this doesn't magically disappear if Google doesn't implemen…

> If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app? Yes, and this has already been happening. For example, Venmo used to have a fully-functional web app, but now you can't send/receive money on it. Many Chase features are also phone-only. Edit: And a lot of these apps block jailbroken iPhones or rooted Androids if they can…

Venmo is usable on the web again as of at least a year or so ago. Not sure what changed their mind.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#222

Post by hot_gril »

boring_twenties wrote: post #221
hot_gril wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app? Yes, and this has already been happening. For example, Venmo used to have a fully-functional web app, but now you can't send/receive money on it. Many Chase features are also phone-only. Edit: And a lot of these apps block jailbroken iPhones or rooted Androids if they can…

Venmo is usable on the web again as of at least a year or so ago. Not sure what changed their mind.

Oh, that's interesting. Was not the case in 2021 at least. Maybe now they're worried about the new competition that does have web apps?

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#223

Post by hightrix »

charcircuit wrote: post #197
convolvatron wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your business model involves selling ads. but its being undermined by fraud. you should be able to _change the internet_ so the business model makes sense again.

Yes, because ads are beneficial to the web. So is account security, spam detection, anticheat, etc. The current implementation of the web is not set in stone and we should take steps to improve it.

> Yes, because ads are beneficial to the web.

Citation needed.

Ads are not beneficial to users of the web. There does not exist a website that is better WITH ads. Users do not care about ad fraud.

Ads are beneficial to adtech and companies with ad spend.

We should not destroy the entire internet to protect/increase adtech profits.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#224

Post by fruitreunion1 »

charcircuit wrote: post #71

>You can choose not to send this to the remote server, but you lose the ability to send an altered or randomized description of your device and its software if you think that's best for you. The EFF is being misleading here by conflating the attestation taken and fingerprintable information like a user agent. An attestation taken does not contain information about the device that can be used to identify since the dat…

>To prevent ad fraud either you need to increase the fingerprintablity of users on the web, violating people's privacy, or implemented a form of remote attestation, which protects people's privacy.

>If EFF cares no much about privacy on the web they should be in favor of this proposal.

Privacy on the web by implementing remote attestation across the web will inevitably in practice reduce digital rights and user control/freedom. The EFF also cares a lot about this, so it makes sense that they would be against the proposal. Both of these goals could be achieved by websites providing the same behavior regardless of the client browser/software that is requesting pages. The reason we have to lie is because user-hostile businesses/sites don't want to adhere to this (advertising, DRM). (ignoring useful things like providing a mobile version of a site)

To note, fingerprinting is always going to be technically possible (especially given the larger and larger feature scope that businesses have wanted to impose upon the web since its inception), WEI is just an attempt to stop ad-driven sites from trying to do it.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#225

Post by [deleted] »

flangola7 wrote: post #176
amadeuspagel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, many banks require a mobile app, which can only be installed from an app store, which is only available on devices that you don't control. Even if they have a web interface, you need the mobile app to login.

What banks are those? My grandma isn't going to buy a smartphone to use her bank.

[deleted]

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#226

Post by fruitreunion1 »

hightrix wrote: post #223
charcircuit wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because ads are beneficial to the web. So is account security, spam detection, anticheat, etc. The current implementation of the web is not set in stone and we should take steps to improve it.

> Yes, because ads are beneficial to the web. Citation needed. Ads are not beneficial to users of the web. There does not exist a website that is better WITH ads. Users do not care about ad fraud. Ads are beneficial to adtech and companies with ad spend. We should not destroy the entire internet to protect/increase adtech profits.

>We should not destroy the entire internet to protect/increase adtech profits.

Yeah, ideally businesses wouldn't be built on this model (free service funded by ads at the expense of privacy and now user control). Then we might not have had to worry about widespread fingerprinting AND we can maintain user control too.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#227

Post by charcircuit »

hot_gril wrote: post #210
zb3 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but WEI is meant to be used in situations where lying should be illegal. But here I once again have to point out that in practice this will look very different. The practical effect is that if someone installs LineageOS or even AOSP to get rid of Google spyware and preinstalled bloatware, then these attestation checks will fail and that user will not be able to use apps that are necessary in practice. The question…

The actual goal is probably that Google and others prevent ad-blocking. WEI itself is not meant as a fingerprint, but with unblockable ads comes unblockable tracking (not that I personally care about tracking). Like, look at YouTube on iPhones, they blocked background playback in the app and even got Apple to block it in Safari in iOS update 10. They don't need WEI to keep the vast majority of users away from obscure…

YouTube contractually must pay extra when people play music in the background. It's why it's a premium only feature.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#228

Post by 18pfsmt »

flangola7 wrote: post #176
amadeuspagel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, many banks require a mobile app, which can only be installed from an app store, which is only available on devices that you don't control. Even if they have a web interface, you need the mobile app to login.

What banks are those? My grandma isn't going to buy a smartphone to use her bank.

[flagged]

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#229

Post by mindctrla »

clucas wrote: post #89
nologic01 wrote: post #42

> A handful of companies have established chokepoints between buyers and sellers, performers and audiences, workers and employers, as well as families and communities. When those companies refuse to deal with you, your digital life grinds to a halt This short paragraph summarizes the (ex-ante) improbably unusual situation we have drifted into. The negatively affected stakeholders being enumerated are more or less the…

> as if they already operate effective mind control at systemic scale. If the logical conclusion of your reasoning is a mass mind control conspiracy, you should revisit your assumptions. > somehow they can bully into submission basically the entire universe I don't think anyone is bullying all of society. I think most people just don't care. It's really not that crazy, no mind control involved. Just good old fashione…

[dead]

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#230

Post by mindctrla »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #204
clucas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as if they already operate effective mind control at systemic scale. If the logical conclusion of your reasoning is a mass mind control conspiracy, you should revisit your assumptions. > somehow they can bully into submission basically the entire universe I don't think anyone is bullying all of society. I think most people just don't care. It's really not that crazy, no mind control involved. Just good old fashione…

Yeah this is a super deep issue but its not mind control. It's a mix of middlemen being the only industry that can still extract more profit, and a level of control over markets by Capital that makes most opinions meaningless. Its essentially a return to feudalism, where certain people own vast swaths of productive space, they're untouchable in the legal system and real life, and one is forced to work for them. To es…

[dead]
Post reply on HN