3 ms·

They do, but you don't need exposure of information by default. All of those features should be explicit opt in when prompted, same as phone apps. But browsers

They do, but you don't need exposure of information by default. All of those features should be explicit opt in when prompted, same as phone apps. But browsers won't remove that data exposure by default because advertising data and captcha systems. Torbrowser gets it right.

kube-system 6y ago
I don't think being opt-in is a solution to the problem. Most people will click anything if it lets them read the page they're trying to view, and nefarious actors will take advantage of this. We'll just end up with an internet that doesn't work unless you opt-in. I think the solution is: if you can't add the functionality in a way that doesn't expose information about the user's system, don't add it.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  At that point don't have a computer. Don't have software. Native applications do significantly more hardware identification. It's not opt in and you're not told what's collected and for what purpose. People install applications all the time they don't know what they're doing. You're not going to get browsers behind the idea of burning the ground they walk on. Many of the features that end up used for tracking are things people very much like having. Threading, webgl, webrtc, etc. No doubt some sites will create barrages of opt in notifications - don't use these sites. Walmart, facebook, amazon, etc, are not going to make you complete opt in for everything to proceed. Even if they do - you know it exists and can spoof that data with your browser if you want.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    That's a defeatist comparison. We treat native applications differently than web browsers because it is useful to assume a default level of trust when we browse the internet. This applies not only to users, but to institutions, OEMs, system integrators, etc. > You're not going to get browsers behind the idea of burning the ground they walk on. Maybe not Google, but Mozilla and Apple seem to consider privacy before they implement new potential holes into their browsers. > Many of the features that end up used for tracking are things people very much like having. Threading, webgl, webrtc, etc. The cat is already out of the bag with these already-implemented features. My point is that we 1) shouldn't make it worse, and 2) should work to replace these with better options. Users don't care whether their chat app uses webrtc or not -- they just want their application to work. The bad technologies we use don't have to be the way they are. Once upon a time the internet relied on ActiveX controls, Java Applets, and Flash, but we've all since moved past those bad technologies as well. > No doubt some sites will create barrages of opt in notifications - don't use these sites. Honestly, this is not a solution. We shouldn't ignore momentum, because when designing global standards, the problem is more than just about you or me, it's about the architecture and expectations that are being created. To use my ActiveX example above -- in some places, for a period of time, it was impossible to do online banking without using IE because every bank used ActiveX controls.
    - devwastaken 6y ago
      "The bad technologies we use don't have to be the way they are" They're not bad technologies, and you can't just 'replace them' and fix the problem. How do you replace P2P and not have IP exposure or a tech that's exactly the same by a different name? That's physically impossible. How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model? You don't, that information is given by shader compilation itself. These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked. Now we have far safer methods of doing this thanks to better features. Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it. Those features are why you can listen to spotify or join voice calls on a browser instead of installing everyones native application which has access to everything. If you don't want a browser capable of that then use a fork of torbrowser or similar. We will not change anything by trying to reverse the market without actual proof of harm. Instead we can advocate for opt ins to the information these features have given by default.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        > How do you replace P2P and not have IP exposure or a tech that's exactly the same by a different name? That's physically impossible. Who said we need to "replace P2P"? WebRTC's security issues are not predicated on it being a P2P technology. > How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model? There are already ways to draw things in browsers that don't require this information to be leaked. The simple answer to your question is "abstraction". > These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked. This statement will, one day be just as true about webRTC and webGL as it is today regarding ActiveX, Java, and Flash. While I don't have a time machine, I do have full confidence that new technologies will be created that solve today's problems. > Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it. Before Javascript and Canvas this is literally why ActiveX, Java, and Flash were used. But since we have those better alternatives now, we use them instead.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  One possibility might be to report to all sites that permission has been granted, but only actually grant permission once the user has specifically chosen to do so.
- sfink 6y ago
  Yeah, opt-in is an attractive nuisance when deciding things like this. It's a good way to argue that something should be allowed because you did your due diligence and warned the user, but in practice it provides very poor security (for the reason you give). At the end of the day, no amount of purism and theory can ever outweigh the actual effects.
mtgx 6y ago
Yeah, tell that to Google who pushed for default access for WebUSB and Web Bluetooth. Reminder why it's bad to have a surveillance company have so much control over the web through its products.

kube-system 6y ago

I don't think being opt-in is a solution to the problem. Most people will click anything if it lets them read the page they're trying to view, and nefarious actors will take advantage of this. We'll just end up with an internet that doesn't work unless you opt-in. I think the solution is: if you can't add the functionality in a way that doesn't expose information about the user's system, don't add it.

devwastaken 6y ago
At that point don't have a computer. Don't have software. Native applications do significantly more hardware identification. It's not opt in and you're not told what's collected and for what purpose. People install applications all the time they don't know what they're doing. You're not going to get browsers behind the idea of burning the ground they walk on. Many of the features that end up used for tracking are things people very much like having. Threading, webgl, webrtc, etc. No doubt some sites will create barrages of opt in notifications - don't use these sites. Walmart, facebook, amazon, etc, are not going to make you complete opt in for everything to proceed. Even if they do - you know it exists and can spoof that data with your browser if you want.
- kube-system 6y ago
  That's a defeatist comparison. We treat native applications differently than web browsers because it is useful to assume a default level of trust when we browse the internet. This applies not only to users, but to institutions, OEMs, system integrators, etc. > You're not going to get browsers behind the idea of burning the ground they walk on. Maybe not Google, but Mozilla and Apple seem to consider privacy before they implement new potential holes into their browsers. > Many of the features that end up used for tracking are things people very much like having. Threading, webgl, webrtc, etc. The cat is already out of the bag with these already-implemented features. My point is that we 1) shouldn't make it worse, and 2) should work to replace these with better options. Users don't care whether their chat app uses webrtc or not -- they just want their application to work. The bad technologies we use don't have to be the way they are. Once upon a time the internet relied on ActiveX controls, Java Applets, and Flash, but we've all since moved past those bad technologies as well. > No doubt some sites will create barrages of opt in notifications - don't use these sites. Honestly, this is not a solution. We shouldn't ignore momentum, because when designing global standards, the problem is more than just about you or me, it's about the architecture and expectations that are being created. To use my ActiveX example above -- in some places, for a period of time, it was impossible to do online banking without using IE because every bank used ActiveX controls.
  - devwastaken 6y ago
    "The bad technologies we use don't have to be the way they are" They're not bad technologies, and you can't just 'replace them' and fix the problem. How do you replace P2P and not have IP exposure or a tech that's exactly the same by a different name? That's physically impossible. How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model? You don't, that information is given by shader compilation itself. These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked. Now we have far safer methods of doing this thanks to better features. Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it. Those features are why you can listen to spotify or join voice calls on a browser instead of installing everyones native application which has access to everything. If you don't want a browser capable of that then use a fork of torbrowser or similar. We will not change anything by trying to reverse the market without actual proof of harm. Instead we can advocate for opt ins to the information these features have given by default.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      > How do you replace P2P and not have IP exposure or a tech that's exactly the same by a different name? That's physically impossible. Who said we need to "replace P2P"? WebRTC's security issues are not predicated on it being a P2P technology. > How do you replace webgl without identifying information on shader support and GPU model? There are already ways to draw things in browsers that don't require this information to be leaked. The simple answer to your question is "abstraction". > These technologies are nowhere the same as activex, flash or java. All of those technologies were not built to be safe. They were built to give functionality browsers lacked. This statement will, one day be just as true about webRTC and webGL as it is today regarding ActiveX, Java, and Flash. While I don't have a time machine, I do have full confidence that new technologies will be created that solve today's problems. > Users want their stuff to work, for that to happen you have to have the features necessary for it. Before Javascript and Canvas this is literally why ActiveX, Java, and Flash were used. But since we have those better alternatives now, we use them instead.
kitsunesoba 6y ago
One possibility might be to report to all sites that permission has been granted, but only actually grant permission once the user has specifically chosen to do so.
sfink 6y ago
Yeah, opt-in is an attractive nuisance when deciding things like this. It's a good way to argue that something should be allowed because you did your due diligence and warned the user, but in practice it provides very poor security (for the reason you give). At the end of the day, no amount of purism and theory can ever outweigh the actual effects.

mtgx 6y ago

Yeah, tell that to Google who pushed for default access for WebUSB and Web Bluetooth. Reminder why it's bad to have a surveillance company have so much control over the web through its products.