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

Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 460 posts

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#321

Post by Hixie »

saagarjha wrote: post #211
saurik wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good? It is certainly "interesting", but "true" nonetheless: one determined person--think Fabrice Ballard if you want an example--is in a great position to throw together a web browser and even implement ALL of the crazy API wrapper specs, but when if they aren't you simply don't need most of them to browse any g…

The end result of this seems to me like clicking on any link means I’m going to download 50 MB before I can see any content?

It wouldn't be 50MB. Five maybe. That's not that unusual today already anyway.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#322

Post by fauigerzigerk »

20after4 wrote: post #146
xg15 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you can't - not until you get a significant part of the world's population to join your protest. The point is that if chrome implements this, netflix, amazon, facebook etc might decide they'll use this feature and only permit browsers who implement this to use this site. Even if the only browser that does so is chrome, that's fine because chrome's market share is big enough that they can ignore the rest. Have fun…

It might be time to abandon that half of the web. Radical software freedom ideology is looking less radical and more rational by the day.

Now the question is going to be how the other half is funded.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#323

Post by thrown1212 »

dgb23 wrote: post #174

Are they trying really hard to shoot themselves in the foot? Google needs to stop this bullshit start innovating again. First AMP, now this? Leave the web alone! Where's the Google that makes great web applications with simple, great UX, like Maps, Gmail, Drive and Search (which has severely degraded)? Or great tools like Go, Lighthouse and Devtools? Disappointing! It's like they're trying really hard to be the villa…

Because when you own the land you can just tax the serfs who do that work. Rentierism is the ultimate goal of capitalism.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#324

Post by MzHN »

zb3 wrote: post #314
kromem wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent may genuinely be to help decrease bot activities versus human activities. Even the ad example is about not charging advertisers for bot views, which is a huge problem right now. The problem is that a tool can often be used for evil as easily as for good, and the more the standard was used to block ad blockers over simply filtering out User Agent spoofing bots, the more this tool ends up evil. And even if t…

This is meant to be a Play Integrity API proxy for the web. Now, I'm not opposed to having a locked down device when performing actions like using a bank app. However, Google is abusing this, because they force their adware and spyware into that device, so I can't have a secure, locked down Android device without that.

You could have, with Graphene OS Attestation[1].

But bank apps won't implement it because the market share isn't large enough. This is a great showcase of the issues with the new proposal as well.

[1] https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#325

Post by maxloh »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #192

Oh by "Web Environment" you mean "my machine" lol! I already got caught by this kind of thing - a https://github.com/nativefier/nativefier app wrapping Youtube Music doesn't work, because Google detects somehow that you are not using a trusted browser and refuses to serve. This is sort of moving in the "zero trust" (as in let's use ML etc. to detect if we trust something. username/password is not enough), which I fea…

Did you mirror Chrome's useragent?

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#326

Post by maxloh »

garganzol wrote: post #47

I see one more dangerous development imposed by this move: limiting access to web content for rival search engines. I'm sure that Google Robot will pass all "high security standards" and web integrity checks, while others won't be able to do so.

Then we may just pretend ourselves as Google bot.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#328

Post by Lev1a »

eastbound wrote: post #293
ploum wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The solution is very simple: uninstall Chrome and Chromium. We are the people with the most influence on the tech. We are prescriptors. We are legion. – Yes but Chrome is a tad faster and I have my bookmarks and my favorites extension and blablablabla… — Then you are the root cause of the problem. If you are not ready to sacrifice an ounce of comfort to save the web, then you are the one killing the web. Simple:…

> The solution is very simple: uninstall Chrome and Chromium. No. Firefox, beyond being slower, also keeps constantly displaying ads… for itself. Want to open a new tab? “Big Browser cares about your privacy, read how!” I just want to open a new tab!!! I’m working! Restarting? “Discover what’s new with Firefox”, “Hohoho, we care about your privacy, LOOK HOW MUCH WE CARE! ALSO WE HAVE NO ADS!” Worse, they suggest to s…

> Firefox, beyond being slower, also keeps constantly displaying ads

One tab with an ad opening when the browser has updated every few weeks or so is not what I would call "keeps constantly displaying ads".

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#329

Post by fauigerzigerk »

bruce511 wrote: post #261
rpcope1 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> netflix, amazon, facebook etc might ... lock you out Is this supposed to be a bad thing? It's almost made to sound like surviving without them would be tantamount to starving, but frankly we might be better served without them.

I see Facebook locking you out (no great loss there) but I'm less convinced about Amazon or Netflix. They're not advertising-based businesses, so are not suffering with bots-consuming-ads problem. Put another way, my site is unappealing to bots, and frankly I don't care about bot traffic, because I don't have ads. So I don't feel the need to support this server-side. Equally Amazon makes money selling goods, not ads.…

>Equally Amazon makes money selling goods, not ads.

Amazon is one of the biggest ad networks on earth. They made $40bn from advertising last year using all the personal data they get from their paying customers.

>Netflix is subscription based, again doesn't care if its a "trusted device" or not.

Oh but they do care very much. Netflix requires DRM in desktop browsers and its own app on mobile platforms. And they launched and ad based plan recently.

It's a mistake to believe that advertising is the main problem and direct payments are the solution. Making a payment takes away more privacy than advertising alone ever could and hands personal data to payment schemes and banks on top of everything.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#330

Post by joepie91_ »

zarzavat wrote: post #286

This proposal is attempted theft. The web does not belong to Google, it belongs to everybody. Who are they to suggest that users with “non-attestable” (read: not controlled by Google) user agents or operating systems should be excluded or punished? If Google wants a war, let’s give them one. Tell everyone who will listen. Give Google hell.

Probably more action than just telling people will be necessary for that.
Post reply on HN