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

Save Firefox

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#231

Post by RBO2 »

azakai wrote: post #5

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only…

The main question is: who pays to make the standards?

W3C's biggest sponsors are corporate companies such as Google or Microsoft. It gives these companies a lot of weight.

Re: Save Firefox

#232

Post by qwertyuiop924 »

developer2 wrote: post #211
timlyo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to make an effort to use FF, but it gradually got slower, froze up more often, had problems with content I was viewing. The final straw was when they had a big update. Instead of fixing any of these issues, they gave me the ability to call people with service I don't use by clicking a link :/

Similar boat here. I abandoned Firefox back in the day due to the memory and freezing problems, and general lack of responsiveness compared to Chrome. The difference in everyday use was massive here; we went from having a browser that could hardly handle having 3 tabs open while using a gigabyte of memory, to one that worked flawlessly and used a fraction of the resources. Firefox then put in a lot of effort fixing t…

I personally think that firefox got a lot better recently. I've been using ff dev since it launched, and it's been pretty good. And in speed tests, it's started to beat Chrome, although things may have since reversed.

But then, I'm not a web developer

Re: Save Firefox

#233

Post by scholia »

Endy wrote: post #154
scholia wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the app only works on Windows 8/8.1/10 and a lot of people are still running earlier versions of Windows. Second, many of the people running Windows 8/8.1/10 know so little about apps that they're "against" them.

Even understanding them doesn't make you necessarily 'for' them!

Really? Why not?

Re: Save Firefox

#234

Post by scholia »

stcredzero wrote: post #135
scholia wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the app only works on Windows 8/8.1/10 and a lot of people are still running earlier versions of Windows. Second, many of the people running Windows 8/8.1/10 know so little about apps that they're "against" them.

First, the app only works on Windows 8/8.1/10 and a lot of people are still running earlier versions of Windows. Why not port it to Windows 7?

Windows 7 doesn't provide the Windows Runtime infrastructure to support sandboxed, remotely-maintained, universal apps. They'd have to write a new desktop program, and that's pretty unlikely.

Re: Save Firefox

#235

Post by falcolas »

stcredzero wrote: post #133
dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no le…

Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach. I have heard that this is too high a hurdle. Why is that?

Because, for all of its sins, the DMCA provides one very crucial piece of legislation, without which the web as we know it would crumble: Safe Harbor.

Without the Safe Harbor, people wouldn't be getting takedown notices or content ID - sites like YouTube, Reddit, Hacker News, comment boards, blogs... all would have been sued into oblivion years ago, as they would have been held liable for the content uploaded by their users.

Fixing the DMCA, then, requires a precise modification of the law, not just a straight up repeal - and getting that done without loosing ground in other areas would be a tough job for any lobby or politician.

Re: Save Firefox

#236

Post by TheCowboy »

rtpg wrote: post #181
fpgaminer wrote: post #132

Media DRM is not and never was primarily designed to prevent piracy. Rather, DRM is used by content producers (Fox, Disney, Warner, etc) to assert control over the rest of vertical market. This article is a prime example of this. Thanks to DRM the movie studios force browser vendors to sign agreements to get access to the CDM, and from that agreement they can assert control. They can subtly suggest, for example, "Hey…

Is there real evidence for this? Does Paramount care about ad blocking? I feel like the simple explanation (DRM is about piracy + a certain worldview about effectiveness about DRM) is a bit easier to believe than a conspiracy. DRM is being used as a red herring so that movie studios can control web browsers? What?

Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, which does care about ad blocking.

Here's an interview where the CEO fields a question about the topic: http://www.businessinsider.com/viacom-bob-bakish-interview-2...

"Some of the traditional — dare I say — mediums like television remain very healthy and very attractive for advertisers because they're not subject to the whims of adblocking."

Re: Save Firefox

#237

Post by AtticusRex »

Question: He says EME will allow publishers to dictate which browsers can implement CDMs that can interoperate with their content, and therefore control the browser market, and that this will quell innovation. I have questions about this, however. In the old but waning status quo, Adobe and Microsoft got to decide which browsers would work with Silverlight and Flash (right?) so it still wasn't possible for a developer to make a new browser that could play DRMed video without getting their permission. What is the meaningful difference from the new status quo?

Is the difference that now, publishers control content and compatibility, whereas before publishers controlled content and DRM companies controlled compatibility? Is that actually a meaningful change for users or for browser developers? It doesn't seem like it is.

Am I missing something?

Re: Save Firefox

#239

Post by zeveb »

samuellb wrote: post #228
0x0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

[I edited my answer, because now I read that new system is claimed to be end-to-end secure as well] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sync-your-firefox-bookm... In the old system your data was encrypted with a key that was only stored on your devices. Adding a new device meant that you had to do a kind of key exchange process (which was perceived as complicated[1]). When Mozilla introduced the new system there was…

The new system encrypts one's secrets with a function of one's Firefox account password and stores it on Mozilla's servers. That has two effects: one, an insecure Firefox account password (i.e., a password it is possible to remember) can compromise one's entire synced data; two, anywhere one enters one's Firefox account password is a potential danger.

As it turns out, Mozilla serves JavaScript files which are used to handle Firefox account passwords. Any government Mozilla is beholden to could compel them to serve malicious versions of those files and steal one's Firefox account password (and then decrypt all of one's synced data, including passwords). Likewise, a malicious Mozilla employee could do the same.

As a result Mozilla Sync may no longer be used by anyone who cares about the privacy of his browsing history and/or passwords.

Re: Save Firefox

#240

Post by zeveb »

0x0 wrote: post #92
zeveb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Firefox really cared about its users maybe it shouldn't have broken the security of Firefox Accounts and Sync. It used to be secure; it no longer is.

Source?

See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11684378.

The short version is that Mozilla now uses one's Firefox account password to secure one's synced data — but there are places one enters one's Firefox account password which load JavaScript from Mozilla servers, which means that Mozilla, an employee or a government (or anyone else who can act as mozilla.com …) can serve malicious JavaScript and steal one's Firefox password and all synced data, including browsing history and passwords.

This is flat-out unacceptable.

Post reply on HN