5 ms·

I'm glad to see the browser developers being proactive to help protect users from this kind of thing. I'll be very interested to see what happens when it's cou

I'm glad to see the browser developers being proactive to help protect users from this kind of thing. I'll be very interested to see what happens when it's countries they have more connections to, who start doing this kind of thing. For example in the UK it seems likely that the Digital Verification Act will require ISPs to block access to pornographic sites that don't comply with the legislation. Given the rise of DNS over HTTPS, it'll be hard to comply with that requirement without some form of MITM, so if the UK ISPs do that, will Mozilla/Google/MS/Apple also block their certs...

ep103 7y ago
yes/no/no/no, which will force mozilla to say no. Do our part, switch to and support firefox.
onevu 7y ago
>I'm glad to see the browser developers being proactive to help protect users from this kind of thing. Maybe I'm the only one who's not glad that browsers aren't just browsers anymore? Now it could be argued that they are political tools.
vbezhenar 7y ago
They won't dare. UK is not Kazakhstan. They would do it for the better good.
jcranmer 7y ago
> Given the rise of DNS over HTTPS, it'll be hard to comply with that requirement without some form of MITM. Or the ISPs could just set up null routes to those IPs.
- xg15 7y ago
  Many of the IPs will likely belong to CDNs or shared hosters, so that would instantly make a larger number of unblocked sites unusable as well.
xg15 7y ago
> For example in the UK it seems likely that the Digital Verification Act will require ISPs to block access to pornographic sites that don't comply with the legislation. While there is clearly lots of potential for abuse, this seems to me a discussion where tech companies make things awfully easy for themselves. Like, what is the supposed process to block a website that should be blocked if browser developers do everything they can to keep the ISP from doing so? (Assuming the hosted is not cooperating) Or is the opinion really that nothing at all should ever be blocked? No pirated media, no malware, no child porn, no nothing? Then, what gives e.g. Google the right to block apps from their app store?

ep103 7y ago

yes/no/no/no, which will force mozilla to say no. Do our part, switch to and support firefox.

onevu 7y ago

>I'm glad to see the browser developers being proactive to help protect users from this kind of thing. Maybe I'm the only one who's not glad that browsers aren't just browsers anymore? Now it could be argued that they are political tools.

vbezhenar 7y ago

They won't dare. UK is not Kazakhstan. They would do it for the better good.

jcranmer 7y ago

> Given the rise of DNS over HTTPS, it'll be hard to comply with that requirement without some form of MITM. Or the ISPs could just set up null routes to those IPs.

xg15 7y ago
Many of the IPs will likely belong to CDNs or shared hosters, so that would instantly make a larger number of unblocked sites unusable as well.

xg15 7y ago

> For example in the UK it seems likely that the Digital Verification Act will require ISPs to block access to pornographic sites that don't comply with the legislation. While there is clearly lots of potential for abuse, this seems to me a discussion where tech companies make things awfully easy for themselves. Like, what is the supposed process to block a website that should be blocked if browser developers do everything they can to keep the ISP from doing so? (Assuming the hosted is not cooperating) Or is the opinion really that nothing at all should ever be blocked? No pirated media, no malware, no child porn, no nothing? Then, what gives e.g. Google the right to block apps from their app store?