Technology @beehaw.org wolf @lemmy.zip 1 yr. ago

Google pushing web DRM into chromium

github.com [wei] Ensure Origin Trial enables full feature · chromium/chromium@6f47a22

This CL moves the base::Feature from content_features.h to a generated feature from runtime_enabled_features.json5. This means that the base::Feature can be default-enabled while the web API is co...

Found on hacker news.

You're viewing a single thread.

18 comments

Here it is. Another nail in the open web coffin.
- Or it will help develop a new open web that doesn't include these sort of things.
  
  I have been using Firefox since forever so this sort of stuff doesn't bother me.
  
  I'm happy to avoid websites that require it.
  
  Will you be happy when your doctor/bank/government's website requires it? When health or law obligates you to comply?
  
  This is much, much darker than just some replaceable entertainment sites being off-limits.
  
  There are a lot of test proctoring services that only work on chrome that are required by schools/universities too. I hate the services, but I don't want to fail my exams, and these online tests/proctoring services are getting more and more common post-pandemic-isolation.
  
  Ah yes, proctoring malware, because human teachers are just too expensive (but legions of highly-paid administrative staff, mysteriously enough, aren't too expensive).
  
  At least you can confine the malware in a virtual machine right now, but that won't be the case for much longer. I'm glad I don't have any children…
  
  I am using Firefox too. However I also consume lots and lots of general purpose websites which in time probably become not consumable if you are not compliant. Which in turn either render FF not usable, or adopt the unfortunate standards.
  
  Even if it does implement WEI, it still won't pass validation. Websites will have a list of approved software configurations, and you'll be lucky if you're even allowed to use a Mac, let alone custom builds of Firefox and Linux.
  
  I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( "content binding" to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.
  
  Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.
  
  So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.
  
  That's even worse. Websites will trust only Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Those of us who value our security enough to install Linux will be left out in the cold. We'll be such a small minority that no one ever cares enough to give up on attestation. The pressure will cause our numbers to dwindle to nothing as people flee to proprietary platforms in order to avoid losing access to their bank/doctor/government. All hail the eternal compulsory corporate triopoly.
  
  For now spec calls "holdbacks", which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can't be used as a whitelist. Surely this "holdbacks" will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.
  
  Surely. Remote attestation is only useful if it always succeeds on an approved device.

You've viewed 18 comments.