The much maligned “Trusted Computing” idea requires that the party you are supposed to trust deserves to be trusted, and Google is DEFINITELY NOT worthy of being trusted, this is a naked power grab to destroy the open web for Google’s ad profits no matter the consequences, this would put heavy surveillance in Google’s hands, this would eliminate ad-blocking, this would break any and all accessibility features, this would obliterate any competing platform, this is very much opposed to what the web is.

  • TheYang@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why we need Firefox.

    And Firefox needs to be a market that can’t be ignored.

      • Engywuck@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Stop with this excuse and stop Insulting people. I’ve been on Firefox for nearly 20 years, but Mozilla has ruined it for me little by little. The last straw has been the horrible UI redesign. So I switched to a Chromium browser. Tell Mozilla to make a better browser and to listen to their community, instead of blaming people for using what serves them best.

        • steakmeout@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does your UI gripe have to do with this biased tabloid piece you shared?

          Firefox is fine and works even better than it ever has. If you cared about the UI so much you’d have tried any of its forks that use different and older designs.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Firefox will most likely support this, if it doesn’t want to get cut off from most of the web.

      However, it would be nice to have a Firefox or Chromium fork with a switch to disable the “feature”, an option to remove any links to websites requiring this stuff, and some search engine free of links to websites requiring it.

      • TheYang@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Firefox will most likely support this, if it doesn’t want to get cut off from most of the web.

        well, if more people used Firefox websites couldn’t just throw them under the bus, which is why I said it’s so important.
        We’ll have to see, but I’d hope Firefox puts up at least some resistance.

      • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        However non technical folk will not be able to or really be interested in all that and will just download the regular browser and leave the option enabled. This only gets traction if the option it turned off by default.

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Firefox depends on google for funding though. Google could probably deal a killing blow quite easily.

      • juliebean@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        i think they probably donate so much to make sure they have at least one competitor so they don’t get busted up like Standard Oil

        • TheYang@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are not donating, if I remember correctly fairly recently Microsoft outbid them and bing was default for a bit.

          But maybe I’m not remembering correctly tbh.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m skeptical if the government would even do that given how stacked it is with cronies

          • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t know what government you’re referring to, but if the EU anti-trust regulation kicks in it will affect everyone. EU agencies are slow but they do their job eventually.

  • PCH@geddit.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ugh. DRM. I freaking hate DRM. I “buy” a book from Amazon and it’s all DRMed. I like the Kindle app so I keep buying there. But when I can I buy physical books at a LBS

  • Fontasia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can someone explain to me how this is different to the trust system used by SSL Certificates?

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    THIS IS NOT (just) ABOUT GOOGLE

    Currently, attestation and “trusted computing” are already a thing, the main “sources of trust” are:

    • Microsoft
    • Apple
    • Smartphone manufacturers
    • Google
    • Third party attestators

    This is already going on, you need a Microsoft signed stub to boot anything other than Windows on a PC, you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac, your smartphone manufacturer decides whether you can unlock it and lose attestation, all of Microsoft, Apple and Google run app attestation through their app stores, several governments and companies run attestation software on their company hardware, and so on.

    This is the next logical step, to add “web app” attestation, since the previous ones had barely any pushback, and even fanboys of walled gardens cheering them up.

    PS: Somewhat ironically, Google’s Play Store attestation is one of the weaker ones, just look at Apple’s and the list of stuff they collect from the user’s device to “attest” it for any app.

    • beefcat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you need a Microsoft signed stub to boot anything other than Windows on a PC

      Not necessarily, most motherboards and laptops (at least every single one I’ve ever owned) allow users to enroll their own Secure Boot keys and maintain an entirely non-Microsoft chain of trust. You can also disable secure boot entirely.

      Major distros like Ubuntu and Fedora started shipping with Microsoft-signed boot shims as a matter of convenience, not necessity.

      Secure Boot itself is not some nefarious mechanism, it is a component of the open UEFI standard. Where Microsoft comes in to play is the fact that most PC vendors are going to pre-enroll Microsoft keys because they are all shipping computers with Windows, and Microsoft wants Secure Boot enabled by default on machines shipping with with their operating system.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Microsoft doesn’t control the standard, and the entire rest of the industry has no reason to ban non-Windows operating systems.

          Widnows doesn’t have the stranglehold over the market that it once did.

      • Saturnlks@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Windows 11 is saying you’re required to have tpm 2.0 enabled in your bios in order to upgrade. Didn’t know what it was on my self built computer until recently when windows said my system wasn’t compatible to upgrade.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          TPM and SecureBoot are separate UEFI features. Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0. If your system meets the CPU requirements, then it should support this without needing to install a hardware TPM dongle. However, until recently, many vendors turned had this feature turned off for some reason.

          Where some confusion comes in is another Windows 11 requirement, that machines be SecureBoot capable. What this actually means in practice is that your system needs to be configured to boot in UEFI mode rather than CSM (“Legacy BIOS”) mode.

      • Gsus4@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can’t disable secure boot if you want to use your Nvidia GPU :( though. [edit2: turns out this is a linux mint thing, not the case in Debian or Fedora]

        Edit: fine, there may be workarounds and for other distros everything is awesome, but in mint and possibly Ubuntu and Debian for a laptop 2022 RTX3060 you need to set up your MOK keys in secure mode to be able to install the Nvidia drivers, outside secure mode the GPU is simply locked. I wasn’t even complaining, there is a way to get it working, so that’s fine by me. No need to tell me that I was imagining things.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My experience is that Nvidia plays nicer without secure boot. Getting Fedora up and running with the proprietary Nvidia drivers and fully working SecureBoot was quite a headache, whereas everything just worked out of the box when I disabled it.

          But this is very much an Nvidia problem and not a SecureBoot problem. There is a reason basically no-one else provides their drivers as one-size-fits-all binary kernel modules.

    • zzz@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree in general, and the overall sentiment/direction here to steer towards (morally) is clear… let’s stick to facts only.

      you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac

      Bootloader is unlocked and alternative OS exist. Or what else did you mean by that?

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Macs with the T2 could be configured to unlock the bootloader, but from my understanding, the new Apple Silicon Macs (M1, M2) come with the bootloader locked.

        • zzz@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your understanding is incorrect, I think.

          Apple specifically chose to leave it (or some part of the chain, I don’t actually know, not an expert lol) open, otherwise, a project like Asahi Linux would not have had a chance from the getgo.

          I might try to read up on it when I find the time whether they still have to rely on something signed by Apple before being able to take over in the boot process.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I see.

            I was going on the fact that the T2 has a “No Security” option for its Secure Boot config, while according to Apple Support the Apple Silicon ones (I don’t have one) only offer “Full” or “Reduced” security, which would still require signing: Change security settings on the startup disk of a Mac with Apple silicon

            Dunno how the Asahi folks are planning on doing it, but they do indeed say there is no bootlock 🤔

            Update: according to the Asahi docs, I seem to understand that Apple Silicon devices allow creating some sort of “OS containers” that can be chosen to boot from separately from the Mac OS one, and in such a custom container the security can be set to “permissive” limited to that container: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Open-OS-Ecosystem-on-Apple-Silicon-Macs Interesting.

  • 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unsupported browser, please install Chrome.

    You are logged out, please log in or sign up for an account.

    To verify your identity, please enter your phone number, a text message will be sent, please enter verification code.

    Error, your account has been flagged for further review, please submit 3 different government IDs, with at least 2 containing your photo, and 2 containing your address.

    Error, name doesn’t match, if you have changed you name, please submit proof of name change.

    Error, no citizenship status detected, please submit birth certificate or naturalization certificate

    Please wait 7-14 bussiness days. A phone call will be made to the number you’ve submitted.

    Error, missed call. Please wait 30 days for another call.

    Error, unsupported operating system, please use Chrome OS, Android, or Google Smart TV OS

    Error, Google Smart Home assistant not installed, please purchase one within the next 3 days to avoid losing signup process.

    Error, could not confirm identity, please purchase Google 360 cameras to verify identity.

    Error, server maintenance in progress, please retry signup at a later time.

    Thank you for using Google!

    • jherazob@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Years ago i would have agreed with you, but on this era of heavy capitalist surveillance you don’t want to give them the chance, they’ll get every bit of data they can get about you. That and ads are strong dissemination vectors for malware. If i want to support something i’d rather do it directly, ads have proven to be noxious.

      • ilmagico@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish there was some kind of “ethical ad” standard, such that we can be served ads, maybe even “relevant” ads (with relevant topics picked by users), but without any tracking or malware, and in fact, with some kind of technology that prevents tracking instead of certifying to the advertisers that the user didn’t “tamper” with their pc so they can track as much as they want (I’m not aware of such a standard or technology. Genuine question: is there such a thing?).

        Heck, I’d be even in favor of a standard to “pay to disable ads”, with reasonable fees, so that websites I like get their per-view dues, but without tracking or ads. If there was some kind of technology to send money to others without being tracked, kinda like back in the day when we used to buy newspapers at the newsstand with actual cash, but digital … who said “cryptocurrency”? Right, I heard they were actually invented to be used as currency, rather than high risk investing/speculation device … anyways, let me not digress (too much) …

  • Adora 🏳️‍⚧️@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a non-techie and don’t understand half of this, but from what I do understand, this is a goddamn nightmare. The world is seriously going to shit.

    • JVT038@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      My ELI5 version:

      Basically, the ‘Web Environment Integrity’ proposal is a new technique that verifies whether a visitor of a website is actually a human or a bot.

      Currently, there are captchas where you need to select all the crosswalks, cars, bicycles, etc. which checks whether you’re a bot, but this can sometimes be bypassed by the bots themselves.

      This new ‘Web Environment Integrity’ thing goes as follows:

      1. You visit a website
      2. Website wants to know whether you’re a human or a bot.
      3. Your browser (or the ‘client’) will send request an ‘environment attestation’ from an ‘attester’. This means that your browser (such as Firefox or Chrome) will request approval from some third-party (like Google or something) and the third-party (which is referred to as ‘attester’) will send your browser a message, which basically says ‘This user is a bot’ or ‘This user is a human being’.
      4. Your browser receives this message and will then send it to the website, together with the ‘attester public key’. The ‘attester public key’ can be used by the website to verify whether the attester (a.k.a. the third-party checking whether you’re a human or not) is trustworthy and will then check whether the attester says that you’re a human or not.

      I hope this clears things up and if I misinterpreted the GitHub explainer, please correct me.

      The reason people (rightfully) worry about this, is because it gives attesters A LOT of power. If Google decides they don’t like you, they won’t tell the website that you’re a human. Or maybe, if Google doesn’t like the website you’re trying to visit, they won’t even cooperate with attesting. Lots of things can go wrong here.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your final paragraph is the real kicker. Google would love nothing more than to be the ONLY trusted Attester and for Chrome to be the ONLY browser that receives the “Human” flag.

        • will6789@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And I’m sure Google definitely wouldn’t require your copy of Chrome to be free of any Ad-Blocking or Anti-Tracking extensions to get that “Human” flag /s

  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why do people have a problem with this? It explicitly says browser extensions, like ad blockers, will still work. It says cross site tracking won’t be allowed. It all sounds pretty good.

    It sounds like most are not liking it because of some potential future abuses rather than what it actually is?

    • audaxdreik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe somebody can do a better job of boiling this down than I can.

      Basically, right now, if you ask for something on the internet, it gets served to you. Sure there are lots of server side protections that may require an account to log in to access things or what have you, but still you can at least request something from a server and get some sort of response in return.

      What this does is force attestation through a third party. I can ask for something from a server and the server turns to the attester and goes, “Hey, should I give this guy what he’s asking for?” and the attester can say “No” for whatever reasons it might. Or worse yet, I can get the attestation but the server can then decide based in turn that it doesn’t like me having that attestation and I get nothing.

      You can make arguments that this would be good and useful, but it’s so easy to see how this could go sideways and nobody with any sense should be taking Google or any of these large corporations at their word.

      • reric88🧩@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        From my understanding, there’s no reason whatsoever to do this besides censorship, for better and for worse. There’s a possibility good, and I’m sure the good would happen, but there’s an even greater possibility it would be bad for users which would surely happen.

        • audaxdreik@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, yes, still trying to wrap my head around it. It’s one of those things where there is quite obviously no direct benefit for the user. The company is trying to sell it as improving their content, moderation, security, etc. which may have indirect, knock-on effects for the end user but whether that would even be true or if it would be perceptible to your average person is MUCH more questionable.

          It’s the same kind of thing when you see people defending exclusivity on consoles. I mean sure, it helps prop up your favorite company/developer in hopes that the market benefit may someday come back around and help them to produce more content/games that you like, but people seriously need to start looking out after their own self interests first and corporations be damned. They earn money by providing actual value, don’t ever argue against yourself.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alright, I’m kinda slow today, so tell me if I got it right: We, the users, will be “kindly asked” to get one thingamabob signature/identifier of “integrity”, so websites “know” whether we’re good or bad guys?

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your hardware and OS already gets asked to verify whether it’s safe to run an app on it (see: banking apps).

      Same thing, but now with web browsers.

  • jherazob@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Note of amusement: The GitHub issues tracker for that proposal got swamped with tickets either mocking this crap or denouncing it for what it is, this morning the person who seems to be the head of the project closed all those tickets and published this blog post, in essence saying “Shut up with your ethical considerations, give us a hand in putting up this electric fence around the web”. Of course that didn’t stop it.

    Also somebody pointed out this gem in the proposal, quoted here:

    6.2. Privacy considerations

    Todo

    Quick edit: This comment on one of the closed tickets points out the contact information of the Antitrust authorities of both US and EU, i think i’m gonna drop the EU folks a note

    Edit: And they disabled commenting on the issues tracker

    • resetreboot@geddit.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We developers should stop just looking at the technical side of our work only. There’s social, economic and values to be taken into account when we put our minds to solve a problem. We tend to go blindly into it, without thinking what it can cause when it is released into the world.

      It’s like if we put a bunch of developers into a secret project to develop an Internet World Wide Nuclear Bomb a là Project Manhattan… the leaders shouldn’t really have to hide what they were about to do, just throw the developers and engineers troubles to solve and they wouldn’t mind what it will be used for. It’s just tech, right?

      At least this guy seems to fit the type: I want to do this technology I’ve been tasked for, I’m trying to solve a technological problem. The rest of the world is telling him «Man, this is a bad idea to implement.» and he whines saying «I want solutions to this technology, not what is wrong with it!»

      (And if you aren’t one of those developers, congratulations, we need more of you!)

    • TheOakTree@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My favorite part is when they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt, but also anyone who disagrees with them in a way that doesn’t fit their expectations is “noise.”

    • Nepenthe@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      [Don’t assume consensus nor finished state]

      Often a proposal is just that - someone trying to solve a problem by proposing technical means to address it. Having a proposal sent out to public forums doesn’t necessarily imply that the sender’s employer is determined on pushing that proposal as is.

      It also doesn’t mean that the proposal is “done” and the proposal authors won’t appreciate constructive suggestions for improvement.

      [Be the signal, not the noise]

      In cases where controversial browser proposals (or lack of adoption for features folks want, which is a related, but different, subject), it’s not uncommon to see issues with dozens or even hundreds of comments from presumably well-intentioned folks, trying to influence the team working on the feature to change their minds.

      In the many years I’ve been working on the web platform, I’ve yet to see this work. Not even once.

      …?
      What is this, “Good vibes only?”

      • rambaroo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never seen it work? These faang people are totally delusional. Google keeps putting off their third party cookie retirement exactly because of outcries like this.

      • tojikomori@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Good vibes only” seems to be embedded in the culture of web development today. Influential devs’ Twitter accounts have strong Instagram vibes: constantly promoting and congratulating each other, never sharing substantive criticisms. Hustle hustle.

        People with deep, valid criticisms of popular frameworks like React seem to be ostracized as cranks.

        It’s all very vapid and depressing.

        • rambaroo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you have an article about react? I’d love to read it. And yes tech is chock full of egos and fakers.

          • tojikomori@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Alex Russell is a good read on React. His position gives him a broad view of its impacts and has kept him from being sidelined. This Changelog podcast is a decent distillation of his criticisms – it was recorded earlier this year, a few days after his Market For Lemons blog post.

            (Sorry for the late reply! I’ve been a bit swamped lately and away from kbin.)

    • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, that blog post is truly nauseating and infuriating to read, knowing the context.

      Fuck Google. They’re the Nestlé of tech.

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think Google has recently insisted that child slavery is just a thing we all have to be OK with if we want chocolate, or starved millions of babies by convincing their mothers that their breast milk is dangerous. But I also wouldn’t be shocked to learn that they had…

        • fulano@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, but they accepted to publish political fake news ads for one of the running parties (the fascistoid one, of course) in the last elections here in Brazil.

          That party has lost, but it was too close. In the 4 last years, during their mandate, hunger, violence, discrimination rape, and other problems rose to the highest levels in the century.

          Google and other big tech companies have been influencing elections in a lot of places, and the consequences are enormous.