mr_right

CHROME (google) is plan to implement DRM (kinda) into their browser

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/978408

CHROME (google) is plan to implement DRM (kinda) into their browser - Divisions by zero

looks like rendering adblockers extensions obsolete with manifest-v3 was not enough so now they try to implement DRM into the browser giving the ability to any website to refuse traffic to you if you don’t run a complaint browser ( cough…firefox ) here is an article in hacker news [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817305] since i’m sure they can explain this to you better than i. and also some github [https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md] docs

Jul 22, 2023 at 10:56pmWeb
Show threaddb2Jul 22, 2023
How does it impact Chromium?
Show threadSonotsugipaaJul 22, 2023
By making DRM-abiding browsers a requirement?
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
yep
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
chromium is just striped down chrome ,yeah its open source but google is the main contributor meaning the final decisions are up to them to accept or refuse ( or even force)
Show threadargv_minus_oneJul 23, 2023
You won’t be able to use it. Only genuine Google Chrome.
Show threadrm_dash_r_starJul 23, 2023

How does it impact Chromium?

Chromium is the open source part of Chrome. I’ve actually run Chromium before. It’s kind of hard to find it. Chromium lacks some Google additions like an mpeg player and PDF reader. It’s also free of some annoying add-on stuff like that app tracker that runs a background process full time. Who knows what that process does really. Of course I have it disabled on my system, but you have to go out of your way to kill it.

Otherwise Google has the Chromium project under their thumb so they’re not going to do anything Google does not approve of or refuse to do anything Google wants them to.

Speaking of Google influence, it bothers me that Google is a big contributor to Mozilla. I think it’s mainly to stay out of hot water with the FTC. They know all too well what happened to Microsoft and Internet Explorer in 2001. They need to keep the competition alive. Still it makes me cringe knowing they could exercise their will on them as a big contributor like that. I mean everyone has a price, and in Silicon Valley it’s not very high.

Show threadfoggyJul 22, 2023
The cat becomes the mouse yet again 🥱
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
not quit , this is way more serious than refusing to give extensions access to websites content. ( for those who don’t know that’s what manifest-v3 essentially do )
Show threadfoggyJul 23, 2023

I think i understand it.

You would need to be using a browser that is “verified” to view content.

I’m saying that most things trend toward homeostasis. If it’s “successful” it will hurt them. But it won’t be successful. All verification is falsifiable.

Show threadveroxiiJul 23, 2023

Agreed. It’s like people forgot about Microsoft and IE. They also had drm options in the browser. Anyone remember Silverlight?

And how did that work out for them?

Show threadLuckyCharmsNSoyMilkJul 23, 2023
I do wish Firefox would be more customizable about what sites an extension can access though.
Show threaddownpunxxJul 22, 2023
Ad Blocking is cyber security
Show threadCookieJarObserverJul 22, 2023
Just as noscript and pop-up/new tab blockers are.
Show threadCheesyGorditaJul 22, 2023

Every once in a while I help a family member or friend out with their machine and am stunned when I see the web without an adblocker. It honestly reminds me of the malicious early 2000s porn and “free downloads” sites… but it’s everywhere now, like cnn and eBay and shit. First thing I do is install Firefox and ublock origin, and mostly for their security.

Youtube has also been running basically porn ads on “for kids” youtube channels as well and my kindergarten aged niece and nephew have been exposed to that shit. Adblock is 100% cyber security AND for kids safety.

Show threadJDubbleuJul 22, 2023
100% agree. The few times I have to turn off uBlock because it is breaking some obscure website it is always an awful experience. Auto-playing videos, ads taking up half the screen, and those annoying as fuck cookie banners. I can’t imagine using the internet without an ad/cookie blocker. I accidentally turned it off on Lemmy for a while and it was the only site that I didn’t immediately notice.
Show threadmiss_brainfartJul 23, 2023

It’s always nice when you look at uBlock Origin and it says

connected: 1 out of 1

Show threadBloodForTheBloodGodJul 24, 2023
19/19 right here on lemmy.ca
Show threadmiss_brainfartJul 24, 2023
Huh? When I visit lemmy.ca, it also shows me 1/1
Show threadBloodForTheBloodGodJul 24, 2023
Opening the debug console shows that it connects to other lemmies, like the originating one here, lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Show threadmiss_brainfartJul 24, 2023
Yeah okay, that makes sense. Federated network with dozens of different servers and all that
Show threadwatsonJul 23, 2023
I said this in another thread, but a lot of the internet is unusable without uBlock Origin IMO.
Show threadsaltescJul 23, 2023
It’s the shadowy lands run by bots that only unsuspecting bots go to.
Show threadrm_dash_r_starJul 23, 2023

and am stunned when I see the web without an adblocker.

True, True, it’s damn near unusable. You take it for granted what a job your blocker is doing for you.

Show threadLuckyCharmsNSoyMilkJul 23, 2023
I installed uBlock Origin on clients computers when I worked at Geek Squad, even.
Show threadHolzkohlenJul 23, 2023
You remember browser toolbars? People would have 3 of them at once, having no clue where they got it from nor how to remove it.
Good times.
Show threadNounsAndWordsJul 23, 2023
It kinda makes sense. All the people who know better already use an ad blocker so they don’t know what it’s really like and all the people who don’t know to use an ad blocker don’t know any better and that’s just what the internet looks like.
Show threadb1g_bakeJul 24, 2023
What company was running those ads on “kids” channels?
Show threadFesterJul 23, 2023
The FBI recommends using an ad blocker: www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Cyber Criminals Impersonating Brands Using Search Engine Advertisement Services to Defraud Users

Show threadGresham's LawJul 23, 2023

Malvertising (a portmanteau of “malicious software (malware) advertising”) is the use of online advertising to spread malware.
It typically involves injecting malicious or malware-laden advertisements into legitimate online advertising networks and webpages.
Because advertising content can be inserted into high-profile and reputable websites, malvertising provides malefactors an opportunity to push their attacks to web users who might not otherwise see the ads, due to firewalls, more safety precautions, or the like.
Malvertising is “attractive to attackers because they ‘can be easily spread across a large number of legitimate websites without directly compromising those websites’.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising?wprov=sfla1

Malvertising - Wikipedia

Show threaddoppelgangmemberJul 24, 2023

That’s the point ofc.

Quiet parts out loud.

Show threadWeltDec 15, 2023
A better quote
Show threadSterile_TechniqueJul 22, 2023
"Do no evil." ...unless it's projected as profitable, in which case, evil that shit up!
Show threadchaogomuJul 22, 2023

They ditched the "don't be evil" years ago. Now it's "As many ads as possible".

I hear that they can cover up to 80% of a user's visual field without inducing seizures.

Show threadacockworkorangeJul 25, 2023
I understood that reference!
Show threadJohnEdwaJul 23, 2023
They literally removed that back in 2018.
Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct

Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase “don’t be evil.” But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to

Gizmodo
Show threadSilverserenJul 22, 2023

I mean, I'm using Chrome right now, but if they actually implement this and my ad blocker stops working, I'm switching to Opera or something.

Do they really expect to not lose browser users with this move?

Show threadflop_leash_973Jul 22, 2023
I think the point is if website operators start supporting this you might not have a choice but to use Chrome, if you want to browse any reasonably popular web site.
Show threadSilverserenJul 22, 2023
Then I will stop browsing them? I stopped using Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit quite easily. I can do it with others if they're going to go down this route.
Show threadflop_leash_973Jul 22, 2023
Until they hit something you need and need if you want to function in the modern world.
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
ouch that would be painful
Show threadIonAddisJul 23, 2023

Internet Explorer tried real hard to do that. Pages were literally built only to run “properly” in IE.

Curious what round 2 would look like.

Show threadnintendiatorJul 24, 2023
In a world that now has stronger cryptography, attestation and surveillance capabilities? I can assure you Round 2 would go vastly different. There would also not be a Round 3.
Show threadSilverserenJul 23, 2023
Like what? Bank websites don't really use ads. And I don't use LinkedIn.
Show threadflop_leash_973Jul 23, 2023
Bank sites don’t necessarily need to want to block ads to implement something like this. They will just see the headlines that say “this is more secure” and that will be enough for them to buy in to it.
Show threaddownpunxxJul 22, 2023
^THIS
Show threadskulblakaJul 23, 2023
Hope you never need to read the news, access your bank account, or buy anything online then.
Show threadbrockprivJul 23, 2023
If my non us bank forces me to use Chrome in order to access my account online, they’re gonna get a call from me
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
yep that’s basically it in a nut shell
Show threadCookieJarObserverJul 22, 2023
If they do that they get chainsaw massacred by Antitrust Authoritys all over the world. And absolutely rightfully so.
Show threadMostlyBirdsJul 22, 2023
Except in the US. We don’t enforce those laws here.
Show threadCookieJarObserverJul 22, 2023

If we break their fingers in all EU countrys, yours won’t even have to act… Like we could technically ban all website and browsers doing that from the entire market for this practice…

I don’t think they would like us to do so…

Show threadmanbartJul 22, 2023
Exactly. If this comes to pass, you're still free to run an "unattested" browser if you want, but web sites are going to require it "for security" to make sure you are using an "untampered" with browser (I.e. no blocking ads)
Show threadSilverserenJul 23, 2023
I will stop using any websites that try to do that.
Show threadmr_rightJul 22, 2023
i would happily explained why that is not the case here but i’m very tired so maybe tomorrow so i suggest reading that article if you are interested
Show threadCookieJarObserverJul 22, 2023

All chromium Browser are effected.

Firefox is the way.

Show threadInternationalBastardJul 22, 2023
You wouldn’t have access to the websites with a non ’ drm ’ compatible browser
Show threadCookieJarObserverJul 22, 2023

I wouldn’t use websites that require that shit and would likely Report them to the Cartel Office for that practice.

Its absolutely impossible to do that to the entire internet anyway.

Show threadInternationalBastardJul 22, 2023
Not to the whole internet, but to important websites. I have no doubt you wouldn’t use those websites, but a person who is in the fediverse is already not the average user
Show threadThe D QuuuuuillJul 23, 2023
Yeah, if your work uses a website like ADP and ADP starts requiring it, you’re suddenly minorly fucked
Show threadmikezilaJul 23, 2023
To be fair I only do work from a work computer, and my work computer already has a ton of shit on it I’d never use in my personal life.