Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Ridley @ WATCH LYCORECO's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@delroth @rcombs the problem comes with how the technology will be extended in the future, e.g. "proofs of ad view" required to visit a website.

19 Jul 2023 at 20:04 | Wall-to-wall | Open on social.treehouse.systems
7 comments
Pierre Bourdon

@ariadne @rcombs I think that's always a reasonable worry (though tbf I do personally think providers should have a choice of how they charge for their content). But note that the proposal in question explicitly states as a non-goal "Enforce or interfere with browser functionality, including plugins and extensions."

19 Jul 2023 at 20:09 | Open on mastodon.delroth.net
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@delroth @rcombs in general, i agree, but adblock is essential for security at this point, given all of the malvertising incidents. only reason i use it tbh

19 Jul 2023 at 20:12 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Inhabitant of Carcosa :emacs:

@delroth @ariadne @rcombs That may be a "non-goal" as far as the spec is concerned, but after reading the explainer it's clear to me that none of the other goals of the spec can be achieved without also making that possible. And on the commercial internet, the incentives for both attesters and site operators point towards doing that.

19 Jul 2023 at 20:47 | Open on emacs.ch
Pierre Bourdon

@carcosa if that's the case (I haven't done a full technical analysis of what they propose): I think that's a fair criticism, and I don't think a spec proposal should be accepted when it's not self-consistent.

I think that's significantly more nuanced and actionable commentary than "DRM bad", and I presume that this is part of what the spec review process would go into (W3C/Whatwg/... have privacy experts reviewing these things, and they seem to already have been engaged).

19 Jul 2023 at 21:16 | Open on mastodon.delroth.net
Inhabitant of Carcosa :emacs:

@delroth Yeah. Specifically, look at the discussions of the holdback mechanism, which is the one part that is supposed to prevent website operators from discriminating against unattestable browsers. Stakeholders in the security business are arguing that it's not acceptable to have holdbacks at all; I'm arguing that if implemented, holdbacks will erode over time until attestation can be used to discriminate on the basis of browser/plugins/etc.

19 Jul 2023 at 21:34 | Open on emacs.ch
m
@delroth @ariadne @rcombs one person's "explicit non-goal" is another's "slightly off-label use" is another much younger person's "time-honoured established industry standard"
19 Jul 2023 at 21:31 | Open on mycrowd.ca
kuna
Go Up