Maybe the thing to do here, when web sites start enforcing this, is to swamp them with support requests. Don't write a screed or manifesto with ethical or technical reasons why this is wrong. Pretend to be a non-technically-inclined user and tell them you've spent hours trying to get it to work and your browser keeps throwing up errors you don't understand. They will ignore the principles, but if they think the technology is "too hard" for their "dumb users," that might carry more weight.
post
I can't wait to have to download a crack for my browser so a website thinks that my browser is using wei and no-adblock.
Just use Firefox. I don't understand why people are so hell-bent on using a Chromium-based browser.
EDIT: I see now that I was grossly misinformed on the issue. Thanks for the replies.
my browser hasnβt got higher privileges than my admin user account
They'll fix that. The endgame might very well be you can only run a trusted browser, safely checked by your OS, itself trusted, running on fully signed code from a trusted source, started on a trusted motherboard/CPU, with hardware lockdown that would only boot trusted kernel and embed private keys so deep that you'd need a full lab to recover them, only to have them remotely disabled if anything funky seems to be happening at any point in that chain.
For now, this is fiction. For now. We already started moving that way with secureboot, opaque UEFI in our systems and TPM modules. The only saving grace is that they currently all have flaws.
I mean, you can just literally read the Google DRM github repo and it'll tell you everything you need to know about how bad this is for the free internet.
you can already only watch netflix hdr content on edge.
A few of us sitting and using Firefox while Google is suggesting being able to control what computer you use, what software is installed, what plugins you are allowed to have?
This is a very big threat not solved by using Firefox.
Right. I mean there's always going to be a way. Your open source browser can run a spoof of an "official" browser, present itself as a valid user, load the page with all the ads and tracking in a sandbox in between, strip all of it out and serve you the actual content.
Or maybe people will eventually be fed up and we'll start our own internet completely out of corporate control.
Your open source browser can run a spoof of an βofficialβ browser
Not if the server requires the digital signature of a challenge to be produced by a key whose certificate is signed by a "trusted" third party, said third party only providing that key at runtime, if your browser can also provide the same kind of authorization from the OS, itself being only able to produce it if it can safely determine that it's running on completely locked-down hardware AND having online-activated DRM tells him he can provide such key; the hardware itself requiring constant online connexion to ensure it's "authorized", and including yet another layer of keys in hardware.
There's been progress toward this kind of things. At every step, people warning about the risks are seen as lunatics. SecureBoot preventing booting a custom kernel? No problem, microsoft will sign your keys. TPM not delivering keys to non-trusted kernels? No problem, just don't use it (and don't get the keys, obviously). UEFI requiring digital signature to be flashed? It's for your safety, but we won't give you the keys or it would defeat the purpose. Embedded CPU inside your CPU running opaque code on every operation you do? Trust me bro, there's no problem here.
Sure, opensource (or even just open at this point) alternative will most likely remain available as a niche, but once all major services that people want requires such a chain of control, the vast majority of people will gladly flock to locked-down system. Heck, it's already happening. Nowadays I can't even log into my bank website without a trusted iOS or Android device. The "free, open" alternative will be rare, expensive, and only work for people that cares. Which is not too much sadly.
The free internet is bad for Google.
Okay I wasn't expecting to be attacked like that.
Never forget: https://contrachrome.com/
So what can we do? Egg their headquarters? Because so far our useless politicians haven't passed bills to fight this.
It'd help if the government wasn't run by a bunch of ancient humans that were there when cavemen would draw on cave walls. The government has shown time and time again they don't understand tech but always try to act like they do. Take that tiktok case for example. They made themselves look like idiots to the USA. Pathetic.
The worse problem is the corruption more than the age.
I think the moment for me was when they had Mark Zuckerberg himself, testify to Congress.
They didn't "grill him" as media would've liked to have you believe. The guy danced around all of Congress because they themselves didn't know a damn thing about what he was saying. Of course he wasn't penalized and got off scot-free.
Just like every other tech company. The FTC, has no teeth. The FCC, has no teeth. Congress, has no brain.
Use forks or other browsers than chrome.
Not overly worried - the EU anticompetition laws will swat this down on this side of the atlantic - but not sure about the US
The US will welcome it with open arms. Because of course, America.
That's not a WEB browser, that's a Googleverse browser.
Also sounds like you're describing a Chromebook. Which, incidentally, schools seem to be abandoning because of the fact that they become useless on a predetermined date.
where linux
i know google sucks but still
Theyβre adding DRM? In what way?
Basically by allowing websites to refuse to load unless the browser the operating system running the browser promises that the user isn't allowed to know what the computer is doing. And Google super duper promises this won't be used for evil.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/
allowing websites to refuse to load unless the browser the operating system running the browser promises that the user isnβt allowed to know what the computer is doing
So they won't support Linux anymore?
That seems to be the message everyone is drawing from this.
I think it'll be more insidious than that, there will be Linux, but only "signed, verified" Linux will be allowed, and the only Linux distributions that will make that list are the ones with corporate or government versions. Specifically distributions like Google's Android, IBM's Red Hat, Canonical's Ubuntu, and China's Kylin.
This is still as horrible. Imagine Ubuntu winning the snap vs flatpack exchange, because their OS is 'legit', whereas every other distro is pushed out, because it's too much work to install an unsigned OS.
One of the four authors of the proposal is on my mastodon instance. How ironic (and kinda embarrassing).



top 50 comments