929

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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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?

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Fontasia@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] observer@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

I think that the main difference is that with SSL you only encrypt the data, and then you can modify at will(as in making changes to every page your browser renders - ad block, grease monkey like extensions etc. With DRM, you won't be able to modify the pages at all

[-] Fontasia@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

I was meaning more in the "trusting Google" sense, how is this different to trusting VeriSign?

[-] observer@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

This is only my opinion, but basically you cannot trust no one. Having that said, certificate providers make their money by ensuring you will get the page from the server you asked for, and also for the encryption. Ignoring the certificate is possible, since it is the browser's choice. My point is, SSL providers have a lot to lose by exploiting the certificates for malicious intents(such as modifying the data, or changing to a different host etc) while the DRM of google is by design meant to allow us less freedom with how we use the web.

So i think that you can choose who is less trust worthy by figuring out what they will gain

[-] phillycodehound@geddit.social 3 points 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

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
929 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37750 readers
231 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS