5 ms·

Even imagining a world in which all the major browser vendors had agreed to constrain browsers to a pure HTML+CSS+flash-like-extension-free web, someone would'v

Even imagining a world in which all the major browser vendors had agreed to constrain browsers to a pure HTML+CSS+flash-like-extension-free web, someone would've eventually come out with a heavily funded 'next gen' browser with their flash/silverlight equivalent, and we'd either be in proprietary-land, or right back here with an open JS equivalent, post-backlash. Ship sailed and always would have.

nixpulvis 7y ago
And that's why we enlist regulators to protect the consumers. This isn't new, you're right.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  What are you gonna regulate here, ban third party code? Good luck with that.
  - nixpulvis 7y ago
    Why do you assume regulating = banning?
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      Well, what's the alternative then?
      - nixpulvis 7y ago
        Elect sane and involved policy makers to keep a watch on the market. Impose regulations that make it harder to exploit the consumer, and hold those who break these policies accountable. I suppose the whole ban vs regulate issue is a matter of granularity. Regulation does impose a set of banned practices, but it's not like you make it out to be, where all 3rd party code would have to be banned. The main issue is that we need to agree on what we are actually capable and interested in protecting, in an insanely fast moving industry. This is why motivated and educated policy makers are crucial to the problem. There's still to this day no where near the level of discourse on this subject that's needed happening in places with power to make a difference. Just like in the early days of the gold rush, I'm sure you could find countless cases of criminal shovel sellers. But given the current ecosystem, this doesn't surprise me sadly. We (in the US) are locking kids up without parents for crimes they didn't commit. I suppose abusive or illegal ads aren't my biggest concern.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        I'm sorry, I meant to ask: What's the alternative to banning third party JS? What's the actual regulation that should be enforced here? Do we ban specific behaviors of programs for third parties, but allow them for first parties? Make businesses pay for all the auditing? Let me just say: I don't know what harebrained regulation would come out of this, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it. > Elect sane and involved policy makers to keep a watch on the market. That's not a solution, that's a fantasy scenario.
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        I'd like to see restrictions to what terms of service can permit. For example, it's one thing for me to be giving the 1st party some legal rights to collect information about me, it's another thing to allow essentially untrusted 3rd parties to collect as well. Some limits must be in place. If this means some services are no longer viable because they can't make ad revenue, then maybe that's a good thing. Nothing is free, and we still live in the Wild West with companies getting away with monetizing our information behind our backs to subsidize the service. It's one thing to "pay" me for the time I watched your ad, it's another thing to "pay" me for a profile of my activity on the site or sites, which has enough information, generally, to uniquely identify me, and contains demographic and personal information determined by black boxes. My point here might simply be, if it's my information, I should be entitled to know how it's actually being used. But the first action I'd hoped to see is to make devices like the Amazon echo, and google home illegal. > Probably the clearest example of a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy is in the home. A person doesn't have to be a homeowner for the law to protect that expectation; tenants who rent their homes also have a protected right to privacy. Moreover, invasion of privacy doesn't just mean that someone physically enters a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It can also happen if someone uses electronic equipment to monitor or record what someone is doing in the home. [1] This also goes for guests of your home, so as far as I'm concerned, Amazon (or my friend, or both) are/is breaking the law whenever I enter a home with one of these things installed. The regulation should demand a Amazon (in this example) to explicitly state how they are protecting my rights given the presence of an active microphone in the home. As things stand they are clearly not respecting our privacy. Even Apple, who makes a point about how "Hey Siri" works isn't completely off the hook. I'd be interested in talking about Japan-esque laws requiring a sound to be played when Siri is activated, much like how a shutter noise must be played when a photo is taken. The point here is, it's MY LIFE, I should at least know what's being done with it. 1: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-the--reasonable-expectation-of-privacy--.html https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...

nixpulvis 7y ago

And that's why we enlist regulators to protect the consumers. This isn't new, you're right.

gridlockd 7y ago
What are you gonna regulate here, ban third party code? Good luck with that.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  Why do you assume regulating = banning?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Well, what's the alternative then?
    - nixpulvis 7y ago
      Elect sane and involved policy makers to keep a watch on the market. Impose regulations that make it harder to exploit the consumer, and hold those who break these policies accountable. I suppose the whole ban vs regulate issue is a matter of granularity. Regulation does impose a set of banned practices, but it's not like you make it out to be, where all 3rd party code would have to be banned. The main issue is that we need to agree on what we are actually capable and interested in protecting, in an insanely fast moving industry. This is why motivated and educated policy makers are crucial to the problem. There's still to this day no where near the level of discourse on this subject that's needed happening in places with power to make a difference. Just like in the early days of the gold rush, I'm sure you could find countless cases of criminal shovel sellers. But given the current ecosystem, this doesn't surprise me sadly. We (in the US) are locking kids up without parents for crimes they didn't commit. I suppose abusive or illegal ads aren't my biggest concern.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        I'm sorry, I meant to ask: What's the alternative to banning third party JS? What's the actual regulation that should be enforced here? Do we ban specific behaviors of programs for third parties, but allow them for first parties? Make businesses pay for all the auditing? Let me just say: I don't know what harebrained regulation would come out of this, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it. > Elect sane and involved policy makers to keep a watch on the market. That's not a solution, that's a fantasy scenario.
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        I'd like to see restrictions to what terms of service can permit. For example, it's one thing for me to be giving the 1st party some legal rights to collect information about me, it's another thing to allow essentially untrusted 3rd parties to collect as well. Some limits must be in place. If this means some services are no longer viable because they can't make ad revenue, then maybe that's a good thing. Nothing is free, and we still live in the Wild West with companies getting away with monetizing our information behind our backs to subsidize the service. It's one thing to "pay" me for the time I watched your ad, it's another thing to "pay" me for a profile of my activity on the site or sites, which has enough information, generally, to uniquely identify me, and contains demographic and personal information determined by black boxes. My point here might simply be, if it's my information, I should be entitled to know how it's actually being used. But the first action I'd hoped to see is to make devices like the Amazon echo, and google home illegal. > Probably the clearest example of a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy is in the home. A person doesn't have to be a homeowner for the law to protect that expectation; tenants who rent their homes also have a protected right to privacy. Moreover, invasion of privacy doesn't just mean that someone physically enters a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It can also happen if someone uses electronic equipment to monitor or record what someone is doing in the home. [1] This also goes for guests of your home, so as far as I'm concerned, Amazon (or my friend, or both) are/is breaking the law whenever I enter a home with one of these things installed. The regulation should demand a Amazon (in this example) to explicitly state how they are protecting my rights given the presence of an active microphone in the home. As things stand they are clearly not respecting our privacy. Even Apple, who makes a point about how "Hey Siri" works isn't completely off the hook. I'd be interested in talking about Japan-esque laws requiring a sound to be played when Siri is activated, much like how a shutter noise must be played when a photo is taken. The point here is, it's MY LIFE, I should at least know what's being done with it. 1: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-the--reasonable-expectation-of-privacy--.html https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...