Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification Specification Title: Web Environment Integrity API Specification or proposal URL (if available): https://rupertbenwiser.github.io/Web-E...
And how well did that work out? I personally haven’t gotten any strike on youtube, using uBlock/mpv on PC, Youtube Revanced on mobile and SmartTube for TV since forever
Also there’s this https://invidious.io/. So yeah, it’s just the classic cat & mouse game that has been going on for ever since software added drm
It’s probably a slow roll out for exact cases like this one to ease the backlash. I havent gotten any notice like such either but Im on Firefox. I do fully support invidious though
Ads. To be precise this on it’s own provides a way for servers to be certain of the environment the pages run (browser, plugins, os). Protecting ads or other functions come from servers refusing unattested configurations or configurations they don’t like (i.e. running adblock, running firefox, running linux).
if chrome fully adapts this, this might well be a full blown commerical by chrome for people to switch to firefox. i have been only using chrome only to run our projects locally and test it out.
It should be noted that “being certain of the environment the pages run” requires controlling the client software being executed which requires preventing the user from modifying said executable which requires the browser to either be closed source or, more effectively, controlling the user’s hardware via blackbox verification chips (e.g. TPM DRM). It’s not just advertisers that would benefit but any website that wants to DRM content.
Can you recommend me one that can be used to download DRM protected content from OTT platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Mubi? Might well as archive the content I watch.
Sadly I can’t, netflix won’t let me watch anything on Librewolf/Firefox on linux. I’d recommend looking into getting a good proxy, a Jellyfin server and also the *arr stack (Sonarr, etc…)
The whole stack will need to be approved. approved browser running on approved OS on approved hardware. Good luck browsing on Linux. The end of user software choice.
V3 manifest got too much bad press so they had to hinder it’s ability to gimp ad block.
So now their trying another approach, this time they will probably develop and push this proposal out, and have multiple adopters before anyone can do anything about it. See also: WebHID.
A system for websites to request a proof of the “integrity” of a user’s browser and underlying OS/hardware, and “attesters” to check this “integrity” and provide the proof. If that sounds vague, that’s because it is. What “integrity” means is for the “attester” to decide.
Google would of course be one of the major “attesters”, and could just deny the proof if you installed an ad blocker or VPN for example. In this case you would likely not be able to access the website anymore, because your device is deemed as “untrustworthy”.
So it’s a way for big companies to decide who can still use big parts of the internet and who can’t, based on whether it would make them money.
Orwell was never refering to the economics in 1984. It was a dystopia of an autocratic government in an ever autocratic world, that fully infected and controlled every aspect of everyones life. Whether that is for capitalism, or communism wasn’t part of it.
Also free capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently unfree and the less regulated it gets, the more imprisoning it becomes to the normal people.
What is the web integrity API?
Basically drm for your browser
Fuck that though
this is the most batshit insane proposal… I hope nobody supports it
if google microsoft and apple support it, that already covers over 90% of the market
Google alone is enough. Biggest browser, search engine, advertiser, OS and some of the biggest sites on the web all owned by them.
If they steamroll this thru, youll have an amazing anti trust case
Don’t worry, people will certainly make bypasses for that shit
that’s exactly what people said with manifest V3 then all the sudden they were getting strikes on youtube for having their ad blocker on
And how well did that work out? I personally haven’t gotten any strike on youtube, using uBlock/mpv on PC, Youtube Revanced on mobile and SmartTube for TV since forever
Also there’s this https://invidious.io/. So yeah, it’s just the classic cat & mouse game that has been going on for ever since software added drm
Google has already lashed out at Invidious though, and they’ll keep trying
I agree that in most cases people can find workarounds, but I don’t think we should take these things for granted
Google has no ground to stand on against Invidious
They may harass them but it’ll be veeery difficult to chase down all instances
Oh, I’m well aware of that, but I also have little faith in the justice system to recognize this
In any case, it seems like a warning shot from Google and an interest in taking down sites like Invidious
I’m not trying to spread doubt, but I also think complacency is dangerous, especially given the history of corporate giants like Google
It’s probably a slow roll out for exact cases like this one to ease the backlash. I havent gotten any notice like such either but Im on Firefox. I do fully support invidious though
Notice they are DRMing text and computer code, WSJ and malware brokers are gonna really happy, everyone else had their DRM fix with multimedia
and what kinda of thing does this protect?
Ads. To be precise this on it’s own provides a way for servers to be certain of the environment the pages run (browser, plugins, os). Protecting ads or other functions come from servers refusing unattested configurations or configurations they don’t like (i.e. running adblock, running firefox, running linux).
if chrome fully adapts this, this might well be a full blown commerical by chrome for people to switch to firefox. i have been only using chrome only to run our projects locally and test it out.
It should be noted that “being certain of the environment the pages run” requires controlling the client software being executed which requires preventing the user from modifying said executable which requires the browser to either be closed source or, more effectively, controlling the user’s hardware via blackbox verification chips (e.g. TPM DRM). It’s not just advertisers that would benefit but any website that wants to DRM content.
I’d guess it’s first gonna be used for streaming TV shows and such. After that it’ll probably be used for absurd things
I thought they were already being protected by DRM.
Kinda, but it doesn’t work very well. Using video download manager you can download pretty much every video from the web
Can you recommend me one that can be used to download DRM protected content from OTT platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Mubi? Might well as archive the content I watch.
Sadly I can’t, netflix won’t let me watch anything on Librewolf/Firefox on linux. I’d recommend looking into getting a good proxy, a Jellyfin server and also the *arr stack (Sonarr, etc…)
by proxy, do you mean a vpn?
Malware, malware encrypts its code so researchers cant crack into it and antivirus cant anilize it. Google is accedentally sponsoring malware
Some fucking greedy cunts at Google having a vision of internet being accessible only by “approved”(Chrome) browsers/clients.
They want to approve the whole environment, including os, even if virtualized or not
The whole stack will need to be approved. approved browser running on approved OS on approved hardware. Good luck browsing on Linux. The end of user software choice.
V3 manifest got too much bad press so they had to hinder it’s ability to gimp ad block.
So now their trying another approach, this time they will probably develop and push this proposal out, and have multiple adopters before anyone can do anything about it. See also: WebHID.
A system for websites to request a proof of the “integrity” of a user’s browser and underlying OS/hardware, and “attesters” to check this “integrity” and provide the proof. If that sounds vague, that’s because it is. What “integrity” means is for the “attester” to decide.
Google would of course be one of the major “attesters”, and could just deny the proof if you installed an ad blocker or VPN for example. In this case you would likely not be able to access the website anymore, because your device is deemed as “untrustworthy”.
So it’s a way for big companies to decide who can still use big parts of the internet and who can’t, based on whether it would make them money.
every day that passes we are closer to the day using TOR is not an option.
Orwellian doublespeak for DRMing and paywalling the web.
deleted by creator
Orwell was never refering to the economics in 1984. It was a dystopia of an autocratic government in an ever autocratic world, that fully infected and controlled every aspect of everyones life. Whether that is for capitalism, or communism wasn’t part of it.
Also free capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently unfree and the less regulated it gets, the more imprisoning it becomes to the normal people.
It’s an API for web integrity. Thank me later
can you explain this further? what does this integrate that’s not yet integrated in web?
It makes sure you’re running an approved browser with an approved OS on approved hardware and Google controls it all.
Basically, say goodbye to Adblock, video downloaders, startup search engines, accessibility tools, and Linux.
Or more accurately, the rest of us will simply fork the Internet itself.