3 ms·

Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon

by byuu 10y ago

Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon their web client. They'd just keep using Flash, which I am fine with, since I don't use their web player anyway. But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. > EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges. I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities.

gsnedders 10y ago
> But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)
- byuu 10y ago
  > AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. EME is also a plugin. Specifically, it's the Widevine plugin. Only now it's installed by default on everyone's systems. And Chrome is already playing games and moving the setting from chrome://plugins to being buried under chrome://settings/content. That "it runs everywhere by default" will mean even smaller websites will start using it to strip user freedoms. Read the comments here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 Website owners are chomping at the bit to stop people from being able to save offline content. > Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does Then make EME plugins optional, and don't ship them by default with browsers, and don't make them officially part of the HTML5 spec. Just because something is 'inevitable' doesn't mean you have to embrace it, if it's a fundamentally bad thing. This is usually referred to as 'having principles.' > Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though But it has resulted in many sites using HTML5 video. Especially when Apple decided not to ship it on iOS. And right now, I can right-click and save those videos to my hard drive, which is just lovely for taking videos on the go with me.

by byuu 10y ago

gsnedders 10y ago

> But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)

byuu 10y ago
> AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. EME is also a plugin. Specifically, it's the Widevine plugin. Only now it's installed by default on everyone's systems. And Chrome is already playing games and moving the setting from chrome://plugins to being buried under chrome://settings/content. That "it runs everywhere by default" will mean even smaller websites will start using it to strip user freedoms. Read the comments here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 Website owners are chomping at the bit to stop people from being able to save offline content. > Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does Then make EME plugins optional, and don't ship them by default with browsers, and don't make them officially part of the HTML5 spec. Just because something is 'inevitable' doesn't mean you have to embrace it, if it's a fundamentally bad thing. This is usually referred to as 'having principles.' > Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though But it has resulted in many sites using HTML5 video. Especially when Apple decided not to ship it on iOS. And right now, I can right-click and save those videos to my hard drive, which is just lovely for taking videos on the go with me.