51–60 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
netflix and prime videos throttle quality for linux users.
I'm willing to believe that. I consume my video entertainment on an ipad.
Lots of people doom and gloom here about threats to user privacy and freedom. This is the one I'd be worried about. Thought it was annoying to not be able to use banking apps on a rooted Android? Think about how annoying it will be when you can't do much of anything, even on the Web, unless it's from a sealed, signed Apple/Google/Microsoft image-based OS... I realize the way Firefox's user share is going, it might no…
The frustrating thing is that this is both the final nail in the coffin for computing freedom, while also having a legitimate use case. I'm seeing new banks that flat out do not have a web UI at all. The reality is that desktop OSs and browsers have done nothing to stop the fact that it is trivial for a regular person to accidentally install malware which is completely transparent. Online fraud and theft is exploding…
As long as Windows users are allowed to remain as out of date on patches as they are, and depending on what the browser users as its attestation "source", I don't see how the browser and website can ever meaningfully establish the validity of the statement "the client is trusted to be malware free".
Lots of people doom and gloom here about threats to user privacy and freedom. This is the one I'd be worried about. Thought it was annoying to not be able to use banking apps on a rooted Android? Think about how annoying it will be when you can't do much of anything, even on the Web, unless it's from a sealed, signed Apple/Google/Microsoft image-based OS... I realize the way Firefox's user share is going, it might no…
Do you realize the amount of work that Google has put in over the years to provide Linux support for Google Chrome? Why would they suddenly about face on that? Wouldn't it be great if you never had to deal with another captcha?
I run a custom build of Firefox, on a (somewhat, still-ish) niche Linux OS, with the kernel and bootloader signed by my own signing keys. What could I attest with, that will make some banking website perceive me as a trustworthy client?
The second this becomes widely available, it won't mean "bypass captchas" - it will mean "can't bank unless you use up-to-date Android or latest iOS".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The frustrating thing is that this is both the final nail in the coffin for computing freedom, while also having a legitimate use case. I'm seeing new banks that flat out do not have a web UI at all. The reality is that desktop OSs and browsers have done nothing to stop the fact that it is trivial for a regular person to accidentally install malware which is completely transparent. Online fraud and theft is exploding…
I agree, sort of -- I still think it's a farce. Unless this is implemented in a way that has a checklist that is updated so frequently as to force Windows users to do what they're often notorious for LOUDLY refusing to do... then it's more theatre. As long as Windows users are allowed to remain as out of date on patches as they are, and depending on what the browser users as its attestation "source", I don't see how…
It's too hard for even someone who is highly knowledgeable to know if they have malware, let alone the average person.
There are no use case about these technologies being used by a dystopian country. No use case about enabling anti-competitive practices from incumbent companies. Seemingly little to no care or attempts to balance the longer term strategic impacts of these technologies on society, such as loss of innovation or greater fragility due to increased centralisation/monopolisation of technology. No cost-benefit analysis or historical analysis for identified threat actors likelihood to compromise TPMs and attested operating systems to avoid these technologies (there's no shortage of Widevine L1 content out there on the Internet). No environmental impact consideration for blacklisting devices and having them all thrown into a rubbish tip too early in their lifespan. No political/sovereignty consideration to whether people around the world will accept a handful of American technology companies to be in control of everything, and whether that would push to the rest of the world to abandon American technology.
The majority of the contributors to these projects appear to be tech employees of large technology companies seemingly without experience outside of this bubble. Discussions within the group at times self-identify this naivety. The group appears very hasty to propose the most drastic, impractical technical security controls with significant negative impacts such as whitelisting device hardware and software. But in the real world for e.g. banking fraud, attacks typically occur through social engineering where the group's proposed technical controls wouldn't help. There appears to be little to no attempt made to consider more effective real world security controls with fewer negative impacts, such as delaying transactions and notifying users through multiple channels to ensure users have had a chance to validate a transaction or "cool off".
[1] https://github.com/antifraudcg/use-cases/blob/main/USE-CASES...
[2] https://owasp.org/www-project-automated-threats-to-web-appli...
> Motivation: Users often depend on websites trusting the client environment they run in. Aka corporations insist on control & want to make sure users are powerless when using the site. And Chrome is absolutely here to help the megacorp's radically progress the War On General Purpose Computing and make sure users are safe & securely tied to environments where they are powerless. There's notably absolutely no discussi…
“who generally I actually really do trust to be doing good” These are mega corporations and you aren’t the client. They aren’t making Chrome “for you”. They are for optimizing for Advertisers.
Generally I am pro Project Fugu & pro building bigger better web. Google spends an enormous amount of effort working on specs with w3c, wicg, and other browser implementers advancing incredibly good & useful causes. They spend huge effort enhancing DevTools so everyone can work the web.
Building a good & capable web is necessary for Google to survive. An open & capable web is the only sustainable viable alternative the world has seen to closed proprietary systems, which from history we can see have far more risks hazards & entailed pernicious or particular behaviors.
Generally Googles effort to make the web a good viable & healthy platform aligns with my vision. That they want to do good things & make a great connected world wide web because the web's thriving helps them run their advertising business typically does not create a big conflict for me. I'm usually happy with the patronage the web receives & I dread it ever drying up, and it saddens me people are so monofocused, so selective in focusing on only on bad, and I think that perception hurts us all.
https://hnrankings.info/36778999/ Is this HN moderation ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“who generally I actually really do trust to be doing good” These are mega corporations and you aren’t the client. They aren’t making Chrome “for you”. They are for optimizing for Advertisers.
I reject having only short, one dimensional views. Generally I am pro Project Fugu & pro building bigger better web. Google spends an enormous amount of effort working on specs with w3c, wicg, and other browser implementers advancing incredibly good & useful causes. They spend huge effort enhancing DevTools so everyone can work the web. Building a good & capable web is necessary for Google to survive. An open & capab…
What my experience has taught me is that you have these 80% things that are good, but there is the one person or thing that ruins it for everyone. One person, one manager or CEO who pushes something through because he wants some gain, or one selfish move that is born out of short term profit or thinking.
From climate change, to wars, to ill-willed software, history sometimes get bend by those bad decisions sometimes stemming from a comparatively small but powerful group who yield too much power. Google is for all purposes a monopoly which makes all their decisions at least suspect since they aren’t competing on the same level as a Mozilla, or name any other search engine. This is bad for any ecosystem.
I wish I was still seeing the early Google that was optimistic, people focused, approachable, but that time is at least some years in the past. There are probably good people working for Google still with that ethos, but it gets overshadowed by those nagging decisions that are suspect.
Even in this very thread there are people saying this is not so bad because “it will help prevent fraud”
lmao.