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

81–90 of 484 posts

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

#81

Post by lima »

kelnos wrote: post #63
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.…

> When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers. We really…

I'm a tech-savvy person and I consider Manifest v3 an improvement (improves security + performance), and Firefox implements it as well as things like declarativeNetRequest[1].

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

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

#82

Post by jeroenhd »

JohnFen wrote: post #64
LispSporks22 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, Mozilla caved last time with EME so I would not count on it.

Yeah, that was when I realized that Mozilla wasn't really able to stand up to the bad guys as much as we'd hope.

You can still disable EME if you don't want it. That's a lot harder to do on other browsers.

I would probably have dropped Firefox back then if it was the only browser that I couldn't watch Netflix in, and I wouldn't be the only one. I don't think Mozilla can bear the loss of userbase.

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

#83

Post by rpdillon »

I've been thinking about this for a few days but just realized that this is a complete end run around all web scraping in general.

All 'adversarial compatibility' from projects like Nitter, Teddit, Invidious, and youtube-dl go out the window. Any archive site (archive.org, archive.ph, etc.) can be blocked by sites requiring attestation.

And just like the book industry was terrified of piracy and were 'rescued' by Kindle, so too will journalism outlets that can't find a business model flock to Google to save them.

This is going to be rough.

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

#84

Post by SpaghettiCthulu »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #36
elforce002 wrote: post #27

Well, I think this move by google will divide the chromium project in 2 versions: one with and one without this "feature".

It doesn't matter. It's a DRM. If your version of the software doesn't contain the right keys none of this will work correctly. Kinda like how Widevine works. No keys means lower quality.

Don't you think people will inevitably crack the software side of things (as has been done with the lower levels of Widevine)?

The end game is probably integration with a TPM that produces the token, or at least whatever part of it verifies that the chrome binary is genuine and that there is no forbidden software running on the client machine.

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

#85

Post by judge2020 »

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.…

Even if Google were forced to partition off employees and give up control of Chrome, they would still be allowed to be an influential force that gets a seat at the Chrome decision-making table, just the same as Meta, Apple, etc if they were to want it.

How would this have changed the existence of the Web Integrity API?

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

#86

Post by neilv »

kelnos wrote: post #63
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.…

> When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers. We really…

> We really live in a bubble, here on HN.

Multiple bubbles on HN. Obviously, most of us are complicit in some techbro business conventions today that, 30 years ago, would've gotten us shunned by our peers, and reported to the authorities.

(Not that current phenomena weren't foreseen. SF writers had already been all over it. Anecdotally, Internet-savvy techies were often informed by various forward-looking thinking and by world history, and tended to act like stewards rather than exploiters.)

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

#88

Post by redeeman »

JohnFen wrote: post #64
LispSporks22 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, Mozilla caved last time with EME so I would not count on it.

Yeah, that was when I realized that Mozilla wasn't really able to stand up to the bad guys as much as we'd hope.

thats because mozilla simply stopped having any interest in browsing whatsoever.

They now have an interest in limited edition color drops and with their bespoke charactaristic allowing users to select color that best resonates with them.

You and I, as mere mortals, may not know what this means, but rest assured, mozilla does.

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

#89

Post by superkuh »

Even if this DRM doesn't get accepted and used Google's QUIC protocol they call "HTTP/3" that they whitewashed through the IETF with MS makes it so it's impossible to establish a connection to a server unless it gets 'attestation' from a third party CA TLS corporation. It's the same thing in different clothing but everyone is cool about it for some reason.

Google should've just called this HTTPS+ Everywhere and there'd be no blowback.

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

#90

Post by anderspitman »

kelnos wrote: post #63
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.…

> When Google can do something that every one of it's users hates I don't think this is remotely the case. Quite a few tech-savvy people I know (some of them software developers) use Chrome and mostly don't care about whatever Google does with it. I mention "manifest v3" and get a blank stare. I talk about advertising and ad blockers, and most people don't care, with some of them not even using ad blockers. We really…

I don't see a huge difference between Firefox and Chrome these days, as they implement everything Google tells them to (and pays them to)
Post reply on HN