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

Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

howtogeek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#51

Post by afavour »

dmitriid wrote: post #50
afavour wrote: post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

> This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. It really isn't. Some time look at the permissions controls in Chrome. https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 Most of these toggles will pop up a permissions dialog. Trigger enough of those, and the user will either dismiss them automatically or accept automatically.

I don't understand what you're saying. It absolutely is behind a permission prompt. If you go to the demo site:

https://idle-detection.glitch.me/

and click "ephemeral", it shows a prompt next to the address bar saying "idle-detection.glitch.me wants to know when you're actively using this device" and has buttons for "block" and "allow". So I don't know how "it really isn't" could be true in this case.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#52

Post by godelski »

afavour wrote: post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful!

I have an alternative way to do this. Check if a user hasn't interacted with your text box in x period of time. If they haven't, set them to away.

I'm sure people can come up with other methods too. It just seems like there's a thousand ways to skin this cat that don't have the same potential for privacy issues.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#53

Post by krono »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #6

I already don't really like how websites can detect whether a tab is active or not (perhaps because callbacks/timers get delayed when a tab is inactive?). For example, dslreports's speedtest fails your measurement if you switch tabs, and Duo's web 2FA interface fails to approve a device which you've set to remember for 30 days if you're in a different tab.

FYI Access to device sensor data is enabled by default on Chrome and Edge.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#54

Post by darren_ »

godelski wrote: post #52
afavour wrote: post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! I have an alternative way to do this. Check if a user hasn't interacted with your text box in x period of time. If they haven't, set them to away. I'm sure people can come up with other methods too. It just seems like there's a thousand ways to skin this cat that don't have the same potential for privacy issues.

But this isn't adequate for the IM use case at all? I spend the bulk of my time not focused on my chat app tab(s) but I definitely want to be reported as 'available' by those chat apps, because I am if someone messages me.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#55

Post by ghuin »

birthdaydog wrote: post #47
ghuin wrote: post #3

As long as you're asked for permission I don't see the problem

"Sorry! Looks like something went wrong. In order to use our site you'll have to enable idle tracking. This helps us improve our software for customers like you!"

That won't happen as long as Safari doesn't implement the API. For example: notifications

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#57

Post by takeda »

afavour wrote: post #19

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site tha…

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful!

That's exactly how Google uses it. They will make an interesting feature, that absolutely require this to be enabled.

It's similar to how to get list of recently watched YouTube video on your phone you need to give permission to Google to log your history, because it's impossible, of course, to store that locally on your phone.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#58

Post by Lev1a »

darren_ wrote: post #54
godelski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! I have an alternative way to do this. Check if a user hasn't interacted with your text box in x period of time. If they haven't, set them to away. I'm sure people can come up with other methods too. It just seems like there's a thousand ways to skin this cat that don't have the same potential for privacy issues.

But this isn't adequate for the IM use case at all? I spend the bulk of my time not focused on my chat app tab(s) but I definitely want to be reported as 'available' by those chat apps, because I am if someone messages me.

That usecase could just as easily be solved through this novel concept called "manual override".

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#59

Post by fsckboy »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #21
josteink wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those permissions have pretty clear use-cases which benefits the user itself and enables things which otherwise wouldn’t be possible. What user-oriented use-cases does this enable which couldn’t have been done otherwise? I really thinks this is apples vs oranges.

Usually the W3C spec for new features like this will contain a few paragraphs outlining intended use cases. In this case: > Making these distinctions is important for applications which have the option of delivering notifications across multiple devices, such as a desktop and smartphone. Users may find it frustrating when notifications are delivered to the wrong device or are disruptive. For example, if they switch f…

giving the users explicit control over where their messages are sent is a good idea.

being spied on supposedly so the system can decide where to send you messages is a bad idea.

Re: Mozilla says Chrome’s latest feature enables surveillance

#60

Post by x0x0 »

tclancy wrote: post #36
ghuin wrote: post #3

As long as you're asked for permission I don't see the problem

What situations would you ever want to let a site know this?

chat, video conferencing, maybe forums, spotify when it has conflicting play instructions between a browser and a different device
Post reply on HN