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

281–290 of 484 posts

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

#281

Post by patch_cable »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #163
slimsag wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if my front door is open, or my garage door is open, you feel you have the right to enter my home without permission?

If you are advertising that your door is unlocked, and the precedent is to enter unlocked doors - as it is to connect to open networks, then yes. Permission in such a scenario is implied. You make these analogies attempting to equate an advertised open WiFi network to an unlocked home, while ignoring the precedent around both of those things. It is expected that people connect to your advertised open WiFi network. It…

I think that depends a bit on context. If I am at home, and my neighbors are advertising an open Wi-Fi network, I’ve never taken that as an invitation to connect and use it. However, if I’m at coffee shop Foo and I see “Foo Guest” advertised, then sure…

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

#282

Post by allarm »

archerx wrote: post #258
dhx wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc? Would it be acceptable for a website owner to block users from Detroit (78% African Americans)[1] or block users from El Paso (82% Hispanic)[2] because the website owner claims that fraudulent ad clicking is more prevalent from those cities? Would it be acceptable to only serve web pages to peo…

I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.

> does this make me a bad person for discriminating

Yes. And not only for discriminating. You make the web shittier than it already is, and more fragmented.

> or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches?

This part is unrelated to the first part.

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

#283

Post by izacus »

lapcat wrote: post #224
izacus wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhone users are using Manifest V3 _every single day_ in their Safari. There was never another option for them. Yet, noone cares, even on HN.

> iPhone users are using Manifest V3 _every single day_ in their Safari. There was never another option for them. This is false. Safari supports Manifest V2 and has no plans to deprecate it. I'd guess that you're confused because Safari lacks support for webRequest BlockingResponse: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

Whatever it's called, it has all the downsides of Manifest V3 that are being criticized for Google.

Just slapping another name on it doesn't make the issues go away.

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

#284

Post by izacus »

crimsontech wrote: post #218
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care, and I've basically stopped using my iphone for anything because the web is an abysmal experience full of ads even with the maximum amount of ad blocking possible on iOS. I hate the iPhone and the only reason I haven't switched back to android is that it seems to manage to, somehow, still be even worse. We are well and truly on the other side of the enshitification event horizon on mobile, and it looks like Go…

You could use Brave or Orion and get adblocking on iOS

Those are all using the same browser engine with the same limitations that ManifestV3 is bringing to Chrome. You're using it.

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

#285

Post by izacus »

tiltowait wrote: post #146
mabbo wrote: post #32

> 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. This is the point that company breakups start to make a lot of sense.…

This line is what makes me roll my eyes whenever I hear someone say "Safari is the new IE". Safari missing a couple of features few websites use is far less of an issue than the dominant browser company can just invent new "standards" that make the web actively worse for everyone. (Sorry, I should say "everyone except for the scummy advertisers".)

Safari is already having all the limitations of what Google is criticized for and some extra. It is the new IE in that respect.

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

#286

Post by zimbatm »

themerone wrote: post #197
zimbatm wrote: post #59

Remember they already added DRM to browsers once. There was a big outcry at the time, and they still went ahead and implemented it. Now even Firefox supports Widevine. If they believe that it's in their best interest, I'm not really sure what we can do against this...

Who benefits from browsers not supporting EME? The choices were EME, Flash, or no premium VOD on the web.

That's the premise that the RIAA and friends was pushing. There is of course another choice; to stream the movies without DRM. Once Flash was gone, eventually they would have caved in because there is a lot of money to be made by streaming movies.

This was a faustian bargain.

Now that DRM is in the browser, it's going to be pushed further, as with this proposal. It forced Firefox to compromise on their values of open-source in order to stay relevant. Streaming movies are still getting copied the same day.

We know from experience with the gaming and music industry that what protects the publishers is to provide a convenient platform, with reasonable prices. And of course the legal system to take down pirate websites.

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

#287

Post by troupo »

urda wrote: post #249
voramok wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I am concerned the reputation of this Ben Wiser guy is so far down the toilet that there’s practically nothing he can do or say to recover it. Like the old joke goes “you screw a goat once…”

Both RupertBenWiser and yoavweiss reputations are fully gone from this. Pretty much the moment they closed an issue without a single comment [1], locked the repo from everyone else, and then a much later time claiming it was "spam" is a pretty dirty tactic [2]. [1] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

Of course nothing happened to their reputations. Unfortunately there are very few people who care about this, or now who the people are in these proposals.

A reminder: the tech lead for AMP who promptly closed all discussions critical of AMP and AMP for email, and banned people who raised the questions repeatedly is now the CTO of Vercel.

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

#288

Post by midasz »

archerx wrote: post #258
dhx wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc? Would it be acceptable for a website owner to block users from Detroit (78% African Americans)[1] or block users from El Paso (82% Hispanic)[2] because the website owner claims that fraudulent ad clicking is more prevalent from those cities? Would it be acceptable to only serve web pages to peo…

I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.

Nah it would be bad if the user-agent contained a string describing the users ethnicity and you'd block them based on that though.

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

#289

Post by phendrenad2 »

userbinator wrote: post #131

It's great to see this getting more attention. User-agent discrimination (i.e. "go away if you're not using the latest version of Chrome") needs to become illegal. As long as I'm not overloading your service or similar, what hardware or software I use must not be restricted. The same goes for other deliberate obstacles to accessibility and interoperability --- creating a "standard" that's so complex and churned frequ…

What if I block the latest version of Chrome, but allow the previous version? Is that allowed under your proposal?

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

#290

Post by gloosx »

insanitybit wrote: post #232
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #61

The use cases for the WEI proposal are pretty clear from the explainer ( https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/ ...): Google "will be able to request a token that attests key facts about the environment their client code is running in." Google "will ultimately decide if they trust the verdict returned from the attester." "Allow" Google "to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest repre…

> Why would Google want these capabilities in web browsers? "You're trying to access your AWS console, is your laptop patched?"

"Oh – it's not patched, screw web – I'll just use the aws-cli to do whatever I wanted 10x faster."
Post reply on HN