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

Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 484 posts

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#121

Post by nl »

kevincox wrote: post #100
nl wrote: post #96

Are you using Chrome now? Hate to say it, you are part of the problem. Switch to anything else. I'm not a super anti-Google person. I use Gmail and Google as my search engine. But Firefox is a good browser that I use as my daily driver, and Edge, Brave, Safari and the DDG browser are other options. Switch today and start taking away Google's leverage.

Edge and Brave are based on Chromium. While Brave would likely block this API for a while (until too many sites require it and it would hurt their market share) they don't block most changes that Google pushes into Chrome so are still largely contributing to Google's power over the Internet. So if you really want to disrupt Google's control over the web platform the only options are really Firefox and Safari.

See I thought about this.

Google's issue if the leverage they have by having Chome used. If it is just a derivative then that lessens their leverage because the vendors of those derivative browsers do have the option of modifying Google's choices.

But if you disagree, then yes, sure: use Firefox.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#122

Post by dumpsterdiver »

doctor_eval wrote: post #57
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #6

Google 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.

I have never understood why Google has remained the esteemed vendor for a subset of technical users. They lost me more than a decade ago when they hoovered clear text passwords from their wifi scanning and blamed it on a single engineer.

Are you referring to Google Maps automobiles connecting to open WiFi networks? Because to be fair, those networks were wide open, and they were being advertised.

I don't see how advertising an open WiFi network is much different from advertising an open house. In both cases you should expect visitors.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#123

Post by benatkin »

danShumway wrote: post #78

I'll add to this, notably, issues are still closed after the weekend: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... If this proposal gets rejected it'll be because of feedback in the press that is impossible to ignore. My experience watching how Google has handled contentious issues in the past makes me personally feel that Google will not be receptive to concerns about whether this spec should exis…

Why did Google select someone unknown to announce this?* It's also the second time I've noticed Google had someone the UK introduce an unpopular proposal to Chrome. The other one was removing the URL from the address bar (accusing the author of You Don't Know JS of being "Trump-like" for how he disagreed with him in the process). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wB1VY3Nrc https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/status/1272777814891266049 https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/status/1275030931577896962 Is there a corporate special ops team?

Of the FAAMGs my favorite is Google, but this makes me reconsider my position.

* I won't even say relatively unknown, he has 8 followers on GitHub. Simply unknown to the dev community.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#124

Post by pessimizer »

gary_0 wrote: post #11
JohnFen wrote: post #3

This sounds like the final death blow to the web as a useful platform for anyone who isn't a corporation.

The Web will cease to be an open system, and will become a glorified fax machine and cable TV network. Those few who care will turn to more esoteric, incomplete, user-unfriendly but open systems. Eventually one of those systems will gain popularity with nerds, academics, and weirdos. They'll fill it with information and media they compile and create in their spare time, and it will interoperate in useful ways that fo…

ISPs will not be letting that traffic through. So no little romantic underground. No cycle; the internet is happening just once, and we're in it. The assumption that everything is necessarily part of a little epicycle of history somehow mashes together Whig history and and an inert nihilism. Don't worry, nothing matters?

We're not in a movie. When they close the open internet, there will be no reason for them to open it back up. Everybody's Playstation will still work. Facebook will still work. Twitter will still work, but it will be all blue checks.

In the future they may not even sell general purpose computers to the public that can access the internet. The network will kick them off as unsigned machines. Maybe they won't let anything on the internet that is capable of running illegal or unlicensed encryption.

The open systems will have to be physical places where we go meet each other, and don't bring our phones. Of course, they could make you carry your ID in your phone (for a few years, there'd just be a $100 charge for a physical ID until they eventually just phased them out), or make you carry cash in your phone, so how could you meet up in person if they didn't want you to?

If we're writing stories.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#125

Post by pepe234 »

benatkin wrote: post #123
danShumway wrote: post #78

I'll add to this, notably, issues are still closed after the weekend: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... If this proposal gets rejected it'll be because of feedback in the press that is impossible to ignore. My experience watching how Google has handled contentious issues in the past makes me personally feel that Google will not be receptive to concerns about whether this spec should exis…

Why did Google select someone unknown to announce this?* It's also the second time I've noticed Google had someone the UK introduce an unpopular proposal to Chrome. The other one was removing the URL from the address bar (accusing the author of You Don't Know JS of being "Trump-like" for how he disagreed with him in the process). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wB1VY3Nrc https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/status/1272…

Plausible deniability

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#126

Post by kevincox »

nl wrote: post #121
kevincox wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edge and Brave are based on Chromium. While Brave would likely block this API for a while (until too many sites require it and it would hurt their market share) they don't block most changes that Google pushes into Chrome so are still largely contributing to Google's power over the Internet. So if you really want to disrupt Google's control over the web platform the only options are really Firefox and Safari.

See I thought about this. Google's issue if the leverage they have by having Chome used. If it is just a derivative then that lessens their leverage because the vendors of those derivative browsers do have the option of modifying Google's choices. But if you disagree, then yes, sure: use Firefox.

I agree that it lessens their control to use a derivative but it is still some control. I agree that these are far better than Chrome, but still less of an impact than a fully independent browser.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#127

Post by pessimizer »

JohnFen wrote: post #80
karaterobot wrote: post #60

> Exactly how the rest of the world feels about this is not necessarily relevant, though. Google owns the world's most popular web browser, the world's largest advertising network, the world's biggest search engine, the world's most popular operating system, and some of the world's most popular websites. So really, Google can do whatever it wants. On one hand, I think this is wrong, because the world is full of tech…

> I use Firefox, and it won't affect me. It will affect you a lot if websites start refusing to serve to you because you're not using an approved browser.

They don't even have to do that. In five or ten years your browser will be bitrotted and unable to read tons of webpages, since you'll be stuck on the version before Firefox completely capitulated and called the users who complained about it "childish bullies."

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#129

Post by pessimizer »

Fartmancer wrote: post #29

It honestly boggles the mind that the same company I used to respect twenty years ago has morphed into the evil monster that is modern Google. A tragic fall from grace.

These companies are merging with government. It's not about the ads.

Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web

#130

Post by eropple »

anon25783 wrote: post #103
treyd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This proposal only impacts "the web", which has already been going downhill for years now due to unsustainable ad-reliant business models. The internet is fine.

While I agree with the other people in this thread pointing out that the web practically is the internet for the average user, I think this is an opportune moment to mention that Gemini exists, free of any kind of mass surveillance or advertising. It's like the web prior to Eternal September. I even have my own Gemini capsule[0] which has a live web mirror[1] statically generated from the former's content. Granted, G…

> free of any kind of mass surveillance or advertising

And most of the functionality people want out of the web.

It's a neat project, but it's not responsive to the problem at hand. By design. And that's fine. But it remains nonresponsive.

Post reply on HN