I also find it funny that the authors point to mobile platforms as an example of how this will work well. Last time I worked with ad tech, mobile ads were flooded with fake impressions, and I highly doubt that has changed. The funny thing about players like Google is that they want to be able to tell advertisers they're doing a lot to prevent fake impressions to get them to buy ads, but they don't really want to solve the problem because it would cost them a lot of money. So they kinda play the line and develop tech like this that sounds fancy but doesn't actually stop the problem in practice.
Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
291–300 of 484 posts
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We didn’t stand a chance.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
An open wifi network is akin to having the shades open or your door unlocked. You can take advantage of it, but almost everyone is going to feel like it's not right unless they have consent. An open house would be akin to have an open wifi network labeled "PleaseUseMe".
I disagree. An open WiFi network that is not being advertised would be similar to leaving a door unlocked or the shades open. When that network is actively advertised it ceases to be an open blind, and moves into open house territory.
A better analogy is:
I leave my door open with a welcome sign out the front.
Two people enter.
One of them picks the pocket of the other.
And then the thief blames the guy who told him about the open door in the first place.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes zero sense. If they ever did that they would lose all their market share overnight, and they know that. Google has always been good about letting people have full control over their devices, despite building incredibly locked down UX. It would be trivial for them to build a Chromebook, or Android phone, or browser that you can't flip into dev mode, but they've never done that, even though many of their com…
That is what would happen if they made adblocking impossible in chrome today , minus all the people who don't use AdBlock and happen to be numerous enough to be Google's entire business. In a world with attestation, you can't browse any website unless you are using Chrome or another attested browser. The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. That is what would make everyone use Chrom…
You forgot one thing – once a copy of the content is server to AT LEAST one attested user agent – what prevents him from sharing his copy with unattested users?
It is easy to see that if something will make getting the content harder – it will immediately find the path of least resistance. This is the reason any new Netflix title is available for free an hour after the premiere. And the harder Netflix will try to fight this - less time will pass before their content is stolen and re-translated for free. Exactly same will happen to New York Times if they refuse to serve - someone would serve a copy instead of them – because there is now demand created for such copy.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what would happen if they made adblocking impossible in chrome today , minus all the people who don't use AdBlock and happen to be numerous enough to be Google's entire business. In a world with attestation, you can't browse any website unless you are using Chrome or another attested browser. The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. That is what would make everyone use Chrom…
> The New York Times would refuse to serve content to unattested user agents. You forgot one thing – once a copy of the content is server to AT LEAST one attested user agent – what prevents him from sharing his copy with unattested users? It is easy to see that if something will make getting the content harder – it will immediately find the path of least resistance. This is the reason any new Netflix title is availab…
This is already covered by the DRM in all major web browsers today. If your software will allow that, it can't get attested.
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been happening already. The market is trying really hard to price out web scraping through scraper detection technologies and it's kinda working - scraping is becoming non-existent in user-space apps. It's also extremely discriminatory. Try running a single scrape with a developing country's IP and Linux, you'll be blocked at TLS step lol
But of course search engines are fine
Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#299Re: Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy this. I'm sure most iphone users don't care when you ask them about privacy or manifest v3 as an abstract concept, but remember what happened when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. They may not write blog posts about privacy or donate to the EFF, but they have deeply personal relationships with "their" phone and they absolutely hate being reminded that it isn't reall…
[flagged]