So, you don't like a web platform proposal

https://blog.yoav.ws/posts/web_platform_change_you_do_not_like/

by quenix • 3 years ago

19 2 3 years ago

blog.yoav.ws

Sometimes specs need ot constructive contributions but explosive deconstruction. It's rare but it happens.

Web Environment Integrity check api is one such example. The use cases are absurd & nor really for the user. Rarely do specs cause great bad, great harm, but this will categorically lock anyone not on a ultra proprietary locked down system off a sizable chunk of the net.

olliej• 3 years ago

Don't assume a hidden agenda

We're talking about googles mandatory tracking API proposal: "Web Environment Integrity".

It's a nice a glib step to say "Don't assume a hidden agenda", but that's a social contract: I won't assume a hidden agenda, if you aren't being overtly disingenuous or demonstrably acting in bad faith.

The opening paragraph of this proposal states that the primary use case is advertiser (Google) who want to track users and prevent content blockers. It does this by having the user's browser create a cryptographic key that is used to identify that user, I mean "verify ... something?". This is the use case, and the specified behavior. Obviously that isn't going to fly, so the authors then spend a bunch of time making fairly inconsistent arguments, that all boil down to "this specification doesn't explicitly do anything other prove unaltered content and identity" and the refusal to acknowledge the obvious use case that they themselves started with indicates that they have no intention of present this in good faith.

Demonstrating the lack of good faith, other things they talk about isolating keys between domains, while being very clearly aware that google is one of the main driver of existing systems in non-google browsers to block tracking, and more over the authors are aware that they represent one of the companies that are most aggressive about defeating such user protections.

If the authors truly believed that these outcomes weren't intentional, rather than deliberately obfuscating the issues or hand waving them away, they would have spent time saying "here are the potentially harmful problems with our specification, and we have developed a number of methods to limit that harm, and would appreciate input on how to prevent these entirely".

Given their actual behavior, the intent is clear, though from the opening paragraphs I would argue it's not hidden, just papered over with cynical dishonesty.

So, you don't like a web platform proposal

Related Stories