4 ms·

"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

"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.

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.