It is disturbing how righteous you feel in your ignorance.
133arc585
joined 1 year ago
If France does that we will beat their ass.
I wish I could say this response is surprising, but it's really not. When you can't win by diplomacy, reasoning, and discussion, and when you feel that you have the right to punish other countries for being sovereign, you resort to force and "beat their ass".
Do you believe France is sovereign, can make their own decisions, and can act in their own best interest, and are fully competent and able to do so? Or do you not believe they have the right to be sovereign and you (whoever "we" is) have the right to force them to align with your interests? If they end up in any agreement with China, it was their own decision and they did so because it benefits them in some way; do you feel you are permitted to punish them for that?
It's available for free on a popular "scientific research paper file sharing site"[^1] if you search for its title.
[^1]: The founder of which just won an EFF Award a couple days ago!
It's interesting how you went from "it's not relevant at all" to "it's relevant in general but not in this case" after I gave you a reply.
If you have found a new security or privacy flaw, I would love to hear about it. But pushing your irrelevant opinions on others who are not interested, is unpleasant for us, and a waste of time for you.
My opinions are not irrelevant, as I laid out in my previous comment that you just agreed with. Others are obviously interested, and it's not "unpleasant" for them, as people responded and upvoted (and no downvotes)--indicating it's relevant. It's not a waste of time for me, because not only did it take me negligible time to type literally three sentences (actually, I copy-and-pasted the comment from one I made earlier, I didn't even write it fresh here), but it has value to others and as such is not a waste of time for me.
So whether he agrees with you that guys can become girls or vice versa, or whether he believes the same narrative that you do regarding corona is simply irrelevant.
The strawman construction was a nice little touch. Completely ignoring the part where I laid out that my personal stance and agreement or disagreement with the CEO is irrelevant, you act as if I personally disagree with the CEO and then use that to dismiss me.
You obviously have an agenda. So be it. But this conversation is truly a waste of time: you were obviously wrong and as soon as that was pointed out you shift goalposts.
If you think the two are unrelated you're oblivious to the considerations that must be taken into account when discussing potential privacy concerns in software. It's not ad hominem to acknowledge that the personal convictions and values of the CEO (and indeed other employees) can potentially decrease the sense of privacy of a product.
If the CEO is so adamant in his anti-X stance that he decides it's acceptable to censor access to materials about X, or perhaps worse that he decides to expose anyone using his software that discusses or supports X, would not consider those valid concerns?
Companies are made of people, and software is made by people. Since people are not neutral, companies and software are also not neutral. The stances of a company or software on privacy, freedoms, etc are all influenced by the stances on those exact issues by the constituent people of the company and developers of the software.
Consider Elon Musk and Twitter. Given Elon's personal beliefs and how adamant he is to enact and enforce those beliefs, do you consider him a neutral influence on the privacy of Twitter as a product? There is no way to see him as a neutral influence; he has direct influence by his ideological stance on the software. As such, if you have enough distrust in him or his ideological stance, that can transfer to distrust in Twitter as software.
In fact, it's not even about whether I support the CEO or whether I think his stance is "right" or "wrong" as you imply. It's entirely about how the CEO sees his beliefs in relation to the company and product he's overseeing. I could entirely agree with the CEO and still consider their influence to be a detriment to the product if he puts his ideology ahead of pragmatism, for example.
It depends on how Google wants to play this. If they require website operators to use WEI in order to serve ads from Google's ad network (a real possibility), then suddenly 98.8% of websites that have advertising, and 49.5% of all websites would be unusable unless you're using Chrome. It's probably safe to assume they'd also apply this to their own products, which means YouTube, Gmail, Drive/Docs, all of which have large userbases. The spec allows denying attestation if they don't like your browser, but also if they don't like your OS. They could effectively disallow LineageOS and all Android derivatives, not just browser alternatives.
It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn't work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google's ad network's reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.
A fork like Vivaldi, Brave or Opera could opt not to implement these changes
It doesn't quite work like that. They wouldn't choose to not implement the change, because the change comes from upstream via Chromium. They would have to choose to remove the feature which, depending on how it's integrated, could be just as much work as implementing it (or more, if Google wants to be difficult on purpose). Not implementing the change is zero effort; removing the upstream code is a lot of effort.
Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don't know if its feasible but there's a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that's the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.
Within the context of Chrome and other Chromium based web browsers, this means that Google will be able to monitor your web browsing in a new way any time you’re using a browser based on Chrome/Chromium.
With only slight hyperbole, we can say that Google can do this monitoring already.
What's worse, is now they can:
- Refuse you access to information by refusing to attest your environment.
- Restrict your browser, extensions, and operating system setup by refusing attestation.
- Potentially bring litigation against you for attempting to circumvent DRM (in the USA it's illegal to bypass DRM).
- Leverage their ad network to require web site operators to use attestation if they wish to serve ads via Google. AKA force you to use Chrome to use big websites.
- Derank search results for sites that are not using attestation.
In my opinion, the least harmful part of this is the ability to monitor page access, because they can more or less do this for Chrome users anyway. What's really harmful here is the potential to restrict access to and destroy practically the entirety of the internet.
So far, the USA alone has spent more on this war than Russia has. And the USA is not the only one sending money and resources to Ukraine.
Russia, Donbass, and the reality of the conflict in Ukraine