13 ms·

Google Blocking Web Privacy Proposals at W3C (2019)

592 points by crazypython 6y ago

RayVR 6y ago
Needs [2019] in the title
- userbinator 6y ago
  Indeed, Google has been controlling the "web standards" for many years now.
  - chii 6y ago
    they control by defacto means because of chrome. But they can leverage this control and make it legitimate by making their POV the main POV in the web standards working group, and this is what they are doing right now (removing veto powers from other concerns in the group).
- makeworld 6y ago
  Yeah, like what? This is from October 4th, 2019. I think this has jumped to the top because many people thought this happened today.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Or because it's bashing Google which is a sure way of making it to the top of HN.
darwinwhy 6y ago
The article leaves me wondering whether Facebook was also party to this vote.
- judge2020 6y ago
  If they were, google and FB could have colluded so that only one org needs to take the PR fallout. Does anyone have more information on where to find the text of the standard in question? There are no outside links on this page that show what exactly the proposal was.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Per the article, this wasn't about a standard. Afaict it was a proposal to change who has veto power at w3c.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Ah, I was confused because it sounded like this was on a proposed privacy standard. Are the votes private, or is there a public webpage about the vote outcome?
davidkuhta 6y ago
For clarification on the 23-1 vote: "Since the W3C is based on a system of consensus, even a single “no” vote was enough to veto the proposal."
- xiphias2 6y ago
  That's what veto means generally.
  - davidkuhta 6y ago
    And generally begets clarification.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    It was unclear to me if that meant that Google somehow had special powers. Seems like it’s just how that org functions.
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    I'm not sure. To me it implies a special power other members don't have.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      It doesn't. For example, the Sejm (Diet) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had universal veto power for all members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
- TheKarateKid 6y ago
  It seems that this is more of an issue of how the W3C chooses to operate, rather than Google taking a certain position.
- every 6y ago
  There are no vetoes in a consensus system. One or more members may have a "concern". Until those concerns are successfully addressed there can be no consensus. And only with consensus can anything be advanced to policy or law. The Society of Friends makes use of this form of governance: https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making
coding123 6y ago
Let me save you a few seconds: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
- merlinscholz 6y ago
  Or a more privacy-focused and less politics-focused alternative: https://brave.com https://brave.com EDIT: It's funny how the votes switch between +5 and -5 every minute. I wanted to add that I did not say Firefox is a bad browser. I was just presenting an alternative.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    Isn't Brave the advertising-focused, privacy-friendly alternative?
    - merlinscholz 6y ago
      The BAT system is opt-in
      - judge2020 6y ago
        However, you must keep in mind that BAT is brave’s profit motive. Google only rejected the proposal because of money, you can’t expect brave to stay angelic in behavior forever.
        merlinscholz 6y ago
        Sadly, browser engines have become complicated enough, that an unfunded open source project is unsustainable after some time. In my opinion, Brave offers a new attempt to solve this (and other) problems with the modern web. I understand that not everybody likes this business model, but I think everybody has to decide on its own, which browser they want to use. After all, browser diversity is important.
xiphias2 6y ago
Web standards were great solution to break the undocumented IE6 monopoly, but now Apple can just do whatever it wants to compete with Google on privacy. Also the fun stuff is that it took over Chrome in the web speed race using better hardware.
jqpabc123 6y ago
Google and Facebook --- avoid whenever possible. Posted using a de-Googled Moto G4 Play running e/OS.
syshum 6y ago
For a company the loves to claim it supports democracy it seems to not really support it unless it gets its way
- bawolff 6y ago
  Lets not conflate voting no to something with hating democracy. If you aren't allowed to vote no, then you dont have a democracy
  - syshum 6y ago
    Ohh Please, W3C was taken over years ago by Google, this is clear showing of that The fact that it requires unanimous consent to get anything moved forward shows the problem with the organization, and it is something that Google Enjoys They have their market dominance, if w3c does what they want great, if not Google will do it anyway and if w3c takes up something Google dislikes they will block if even if every other members wants it done. I am still shocked by the number of Google Defenders there are ... 2021 Google's mantra may as well be "Always do evil"
    - johnmaguire2013 6y ago
      If it truly becomes an issue, W3C will simply cease to be relevant and a new group will take its place.
      - vaduz 6y ago
        For many of the basic standards including HTML, WHATWG has already taken over in relevance (thanks, in no small part, on the strong desire by W3C to actually have two interoperable implementations). WHATWG is a cooperation between Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft as far as control goes.
      - syshum 6y ago
        W3C is already irrelevant some people just have not realized it yet The Web is controlled by Google, Full Stop. There is no "standards" there is Google. This has been shown more than a few times with things that Google Wanted, others opposes but some how the w3c always sides with google... hmmmm I wonder why that is Nothing will replace it because 85ish Percent of the Browser Market is Chrome or Chromium Based. Chrome, Edge, Brave, <<insert name of your fav chrome clone here>> I fully expect to see FireFox become chromium based with in the next 5 years. While everyone was beating IE and Microsoft we surrendered the web to Google and Chrome it will take a generation to win that back, if ever
jpollock 6y ago
I don't understand the issue. There is nothing preventing any member from considering privacy issues as blocking. Since consensus is required, why require another round of review and approvals? Unless members don't all have people on the PWG and are looking to offload review expenses on the organisations that are?
bawolff 6y ago
Meh, from the article, they didnt actually veto any specific privacy proposal, just a change to who can veto something on privacy grounds. I feel like that is pretty different from what the title implied.
- lolinder 6y ago
  They vetoed an otherwise-popular proposal to grant teeth to the privacy working group. That is worse than vetoing a single proposal. It comes off as Google preserving their ability to do whatever they want in the W3C.
  - tssva 6y ago
    I fail to see how this preserves some ability of Google to do whatever they like at the W3C. I see it as highlighting exactly why Google can't do whatever they like at the W3C. Just as their single vote prevented this change any other single voting organization could block whatever Google wants to do at the W3C.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      The real problem is that Google, due to ownership of Blink/Chrome, has so much power de facto that the W3C process cannot meaningfully prevent them from doing whatever they like anyway - if W3C doesn't follow, it risks a repeat of WHATWG.
      - tssva 6y ago
        I'm not sure why the W3C should have the power to prevent anybody from doing anything.
  - refulgentis 6y ago
    Looks like everyone has the right to veto (hence, this outcome from a year and a half ago), and they vetoed forming a small committee that would thus have an exclusive veto. Apple's been kneecapping the web for years with the dual argument "you cant have WebUSB/Bluetooth and be private, permission dialogs don't count." After allowing iOS to make the opposite trade-off while confusingly marketing their phones as "what happens on your phone stays on your phone", and making Facebook a central authentication mechanism in iOS 4 and pushing devs to use it to "hurt Google", allowing them to obfuscate their vetoes via an exclusive smaller group seems blinkered.
spideymans 6y ago
This is precisely why I'm so disappointed in Microsoft for choosing Chromium for Edge. This only gives Google more power to run roughshod over user privacy. I would've much rather seen them adapt WebKit or Gecko for Edge. Chromium doesn't need to be any more powerful. At least will still have Firefox and WebKit to prevent Google from having total reign over user piracy on the web.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The danger from a dearth of independent implementations revolves mostly around programming errors; i.e. if everyone uses Chromium code, and it has a bug with some particular CSS property, it will inevitably become web standard behavior anyway since content will be written to rely upon the bug. (See also: Adobe Flash) It does not foreclose downstream Chromium users' ability to strip out or restrict features they believe to be harmful to user privacy; as all the code is provided under a variety of Free licenses that are specifically designed to allow removing unwanted functionality.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    Privacy is as much about adding features as removing them. Rewriting APIs that no one else have the manpower to reimplement and update for decades is a bigger problem than adding privacy invasive features. Google could easily make changes big enough that it would break for example Brave's ability to add the features it wants. Like a new API that cannot be used by adblockers as effective as the old one..
    - spideymans 6y ago
      >Privacy is as much about adding features as removing them This is a perspective that's often missing from discussions surrounding web APIs. These APIs aren't just about what cool new things legitimate developers can do with them. They're also about what they'll enable bad actors to do. APIs must be designed defensively, otherwise we risk users feeling [even more] unsafe on the web.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rafaelturk 6y ago
Can someone elaborate on what was actually vetoed? Article mentions `charter change for the Privacy Interest Group (PING)` not clear for me what it means
- fishtoaster 6y ago
  Looks like they veto'd giving PING (an interest group within the W3C) veto power. "Google was the only member of the W3C to vote “No” to a proposed charter change for the Privacy Interest Group (PING), a working group of the W3C dedicated to web privacy matters. Concerned that web privacy issues were being routinely ignored by many working groups of the W3C, the Privacy Interest Group sought to expand its charter, such that it would have the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy. "
- Guidii 6y ago
  Here's what I got from sniffing through the group's posts. The proposed charter is at [0]. Google raised an objection to the charter in [1]. Chris Wilson posted some clarifications in [2] and Daniel Glazmen posted a response/comment in [3]. As far as I can tell, an objection was raised in a consensus-based discussion. I didn't see any evidence of support from the "other 23" or of any actual vote taking place. I'd assume that others would know more about any such details. [0] https://github.com/w3cping/administrivia/blob/process-changes-2019q3/README.md#privacy-review https://github.com/w3cping/administrivia/blob/process-change... [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0055.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0056.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0057.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... (Disclosure: Googler - drawing only from public record, speaking only for myself)
fishtoaster 6y ago
The title seems a bit misleading. If I read this right, Google didn't veto a privacy proposal- it veto'd giving an interest group within the WC3 "the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy." It's still probably bad, I'm quite prepared to believe the spirit of the headline (that google is anti-privacy), but it doesn't seem like this is a case of google directly hurting privacy in web standards.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  It is preventing a privacy advocacy group in the W3C from gaining additional influence. I think that's a pretty clear hit to web privacy.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    And also, everyone else voted in favor, so I'm inclined to believe it was a reasonable proposal.
    - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
      yikes, not a fan of that argument as a matter of principle.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        When it comes to privacy, you can safely assume whatever side Google is on is the wrong one, and the one everyone else is on is probably costly to Google's web domination plans.
        3np 6y ago
        Depends. When they were struggling with the CCP, eventually getting all their services blocked in Mainland China, I don't think so. There are more examples of situations were Google really does take the other side of the table. It's not helpful to reducing it to these extremes.
015a 6y ago
I do find it rather fitting that Google, of all companies, would take issue with ethical oversignt standing in the way of technical "progress", which was their specious argument for their veto. That essentially describes their entire corporate MO. Their veto being interpreted as anti-privacy is one thing, but their reasoning for the veto is, in my view, even worse. In attempting to steer the conversation away from their anti-privacy stance, they drove straight into a wall of "any kind of ethics in software should be an afterthought". Not good.
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
First of all, I've never heard of PING. Second: > Concerned that web privacy issues were being routinely ignored by many working groups of the W3C, the Privacy Interest Group sought to expand its charter, such that it would have the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy. This wasn't just that Google "vetoed" a new privacy standard, they actually just vetoed the group's ability to "veto" future standards. Everyone voted for it, except Google. And that was enough to block it. To Google engineers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rasz 6y ago
  Did they name themselves after https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_ping.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_ping.asp ? "Specifies the URL to be notified if the user follows the hyperlink. Must be a space separated list of one or more valid URLs" currently used by Google for tracking
- vyrotek 6y ago
  I was both proud and disappointed that I knew exactly what video that would be before clicking it.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  I'm not a Google engineer, but this doesn't feel like an "Are we the baddies" moment to me: giving a small group within the W3C the ability to block any technical proposal — including from the article what seems to be as far-reaching as all existing IoT proposals — feels like it strips the W3C of what little utility it has left. If the W3C mandates that everyone has to stop making IoT stuff, it seems unlikely that Google (or anyone else) would stop... Presumably the only thing that would stop would be meaningful W3C discussions about the proposals before they get shipped and become de facto standards, leading to an ever more siloed, fractured web. W3C has repeatedly shot itself in the foot with sweeping mandates that major vendors oppose and which are then ignored; that's the reason we now have the separate WHATWG org and the reason W3C no longer leads much in terms of browser standards. Adding more mandates from tiny players (e.g. Brave) doesn't feel super useful, even if the group is supposedly focused on privacy — although the article even notes that at least part of the desire of the group was for "rivals to limit or handicap the ability of Google to compete against them."
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Yeah, I wouldn't want to give a group optimizing for one dimension veto power over my n-dimensional effort either. Single-issue voters can really gum up the works in a lot of different ways.
renewiltord 6y ago
Is there news from a tech-familiar source? Never mind. I was able to get the info from comments here. It makes sense to No this. Creation of these But First We Must Stamp things on proposals always stalls technical proposals. I'm on Google's side here.
underwater 6y ago
The irony is that Google have the power the block any new technical specification thanks to their monopoly over the browser market. They can just not implement a spec and it's dead.
varispeed 6y ago
Google shouldn't have a right to vote since they have a conflict of interest. I would like to see Google removed from W3C. Absolute shambles!
yumraj 6y ago
How and why does a company get a veto?
- jefftk 6y ago
  Most W3C members are companies: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List. Each member gets a vote. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    And because most are companies it is dying a slow death.
  - yumraj 6y ago
    I understand they get a vote. I was asking why do they get a veto?
    - jefftk 6y ago
      The W3C operates on consensus, which means if any member is opposed a proposal does not go forward.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
random5634 6y ago
Heads up - googles browser, despite not being packaged with Windows or Mac, absolutely dominates market share. They, not these other companies, developed a web browser that people want. The point I'm making - GOOGLE, not these standards bodies decides what is a standard.
- mirkules 6y ago
  I’ve heard this line before, except back then it was Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
  - esrauch 6y ago
    The users didn't choose internet explorer though: the comparison may hold for Android Chrome but not really for Chrome on Windows.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      Back when NN and IE were still in heavy competition, users did choose IE - partly because it was better at standards in some respects (ironically), but mostly because it was free. Once that happened, IE-only websites proliferated, effectively locking the users into the ecosystem. We're now seeing the same process play out with Chrome. I agree that Chrome became dominant for better reasons than IE, but the outcome is harmful either way.
- kiwijamo 6y ago
  Keep in mind Google is the default browser on Android. Many corporates load Chrome as the default browser as part of their setup process for new machines. For many naive people Chrome is the default browser. It's been a long time since I've seen a a windows machine provisioned by a corporate with Edge as the default browser. Many corporates also warn people away from Edge, Safari, Firefox and other "undesirable" browsers. So IMHO it's not demand from people but really for many the decision has been imposed on them by others.
  - 6y ago
ggm 6y ago
Rough Consensus is easier than Consensus. Rough consensus is good enough for the IETF. I'm not saying "Veto is evil" but I am unsure this was a wise decision for a policy forum to take. Arguably it is, only fully mutually agreed positions should emerge, but that really is a defence of the status quo, in almost all cases.
hirundo 6y ago
> warning that an eliminated of ubiquitous ad-tracking cookies would mean the end of the web as we know it Much of my paycheck ultimately depends on ad-tracking cookies. My employer might well not survive their elimination. Still, this sounds to me more like an enticement than a warning. Yes, please, let's rebuild the web with only opt-in tracking.
gcb0 6y ago
Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here. Every single one of you who use chrome daily, both on desktop or mobile, is directly contributing to Google being able to do this. If Chrome was one of two or three browsers, google would have to at least pretend to play nice. Google is doing exactly what they accused Microsoft of trying to do in the famous Google vs Microsoft, strong arm W3C and define standards in their self interest. At least Microsoft gave us ajax. Google just stole an AGPL browser, changed the license and marketed it heavily with the money they were giving to mozilla.
crazypython 6y ago
Not giving the PING the authority to veto privacy proposals is saying that an API that contravenes privacy is allowed to be in web standards. One of the W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles[0] is that "Security and privacy are essential". This suggests that Google disagrees. [0]: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#privacy https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#priv...
raggi 6y ago
there's a certain irony when i open devtools on this magazines page and see it submitting beacons to third party sites at a rate of >100hz.
jb775 6y ago
> Throughout much of 2019, Internet tech giant Google has attempted to portray itself as a public champion of web privacy Wait did anyone in the world actually believe this? Their primary business model relies on the opposite. The only privacy aspect they would naturally care about is keeping user data private from competitors.

592 points by crazypython 6y ago

RayVR 6y ago

Needs [2019] in the title

userbinator 6y ago
Indeed, Google has been controlling the "web standards" for many years now.
- chii 6y ago
  they control by defacto means because of chrome. But they can leverage this control and make it legitimate by making their POV the main POV in the web standards working group, and this is what they are doing right now (removing veto powers from other concerns in the group).
makeworld 6y ago
Yeah, like what? This is from October 4th, 2019. I think this has jumped to the top because many people thought this happened today.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Or because it's bashing Google which is a sure way of making it to the top of HN.

darwinwhy 6y ago

The article leaves me wondering whether Facebook was also party to this vote.

judge2020 6y ago
If they were, google and FB could have colluded so that only one org needs to take the PR fallout. Does anyone have more information on where to find the text of the standard in question? There are no outside links on this page that show what exactly the proposal was.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Per the article, this wasn't about a standard. Afaict it was a proposal to change who has veto power at w3c.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Ah, I was confused because it sounded like this was on a proposed privacy standard. Are the votes private, or is there a public webpage about the vote outcome?

davidkuhta 6y ago

For clarification on the 23-1 vote: "Since the W3C is based on a system of consensus, even a single “no” vote was enough to veto the proposal."

xiphias2 6y ago
That's what veto means generally.
- davidkuhta 6y ago
  And generally begets clarification.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  It was unclear to me if that meant that Google somehow had special powers. Seems like it’s just how that org functions.
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  I'm not sure. To me it implies a special power other members don't have.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    It doesn't. For example, the Sejm (Diet) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had universal veto power for all members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
TheKarateKid 6y ago
It seems that this is more of an issue of how the W3C chooses to operate, rather than Google taking a certain position.
every 6y ago
There are no vetoes in a consensus system. One or more members may have a "concern". Until those concerns are successfully addressed there can be no consensus. And only with consensus can anything be advanced to policy or law. The Society of Friends makes use of this form of governance: https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making

coding123 6y ago

Let me save you a few seconds: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

merlinscholz 6y ago
Or a more privacy-focused and less politics-focused alternative: https://brave.com https://brave.com EDIT: It's funny how the votes switch between +5 and -5 every minute. I wanted to add that I did not say Firefox is a bad browser. I was just presenting an alternative.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  Isn't Brave the advertising-focused, privacy-friendly alternative?
  - merlinscholz 6y ago
    The BAT system is opt-in
    - judge2020 6y ago
      However, you must keep in mind that BAT is brave’s profit motive. Google only rejected the proposal because of money, you can’t expect brave to stay angelic in behavior forever.
      - merlinscholz 6y ago
        Sadly, browser engines have become complicated enough, that an unfunded open source project is unsustainable after some time. In my opinion, Brave offers a new attempt to solve this (and other) problems with the modern web. I understand that not everybody likes this business model, but I think everybody has to decide on its own, which browser they want to use. After all, browser diversity is important.

xiphias2 6y ago

Web standards were great solution to break the undocumented IE6 monopoly, but now Apple can just do whatever it wants to compete with Google on privacy. Also the fun stuff is that it took over Chrome in the web speed race using better hardware.

jqpabc123 6y ago

Google and Facebook --- avoid whenever possible. Posted using a de-Googled Moto G4 Play running e/OS.

syshum 6y ago

For a company the loves to claim it supports democracy it seems to not really support it unless it gets its way

bawolff 6y ago
Lets not conflate voting no to something with hating democracy. If you aren't allowed to vote no, then you dont have a democracy
- syshum 6y ago
  Ohh Please, W3C was taken over years ago by Google, this is clear showing of that The fact that it requires unanimous consent to get anything moved forward shows the problem with the organization, and it is something that Google Enjoys They have their market dominance, if w3c does what they want great, if not Google will do it anyway and if w3c takes up something Google dislikes they will block if even if every other members wants it done. I am still shocked by the number of Google Defenders there are ... 2021 Google's mantra may as well be "Always do evil"
  - johnmaguire2013 6y ago
    If it truly becomes an issue, W3C will simply cease to be relevant and a new group will take its place.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      For many of the basic standards including HTML, WHATWG has already taken over in relevance (thanks, in no small part, on the strong desire by W3C to actually have two interoperable implementations). WHATWG is a cooperation between Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft as far as control goes.
    - syshum 6y ago
      W3C is already irrelevant some people just have not realized it yet The Web is controlled by Google, Full Stop. There is no "standards" there is Google. This has been shown more than a few times with things that Google Wanted, others opposes but some how the w3c always sides with google... hmmmm I wonder why that is Nothing will replace it because 85ish Percent of the Browser Market is Chrome or Chromium Based. Chrome, Edge, Brave, <<insert name of your fav chrome clone here>> I fully expect to see FireFox become chromium based with in the next 5 years. While everyone was beating IE and Microsoft we surrendered the web to Google and Chrome it will take a generation to win that back, if ever

jpollock 6y ago

I don't understand the issue. There is nothing preventing any member from considering privacy issues as blocking. Since consensus is required, why require another round of review and approvals? Unless members don't all have people on the PWG and are looking to offload review expenses on the organisations that are?

bawolff 6y ago

Meh, from the article, they didnt actually veto any specific privacy proposal, just a change to who can veto something on privacy grounds. I feel like that is pretty different from what the title implied.

lolinder 6y ago
They vetoed an otherwise-popular proposal to grant teeth to the privacy working group. That is worse than vetoing a single proposal. It comes off as Google preserving their ability to do whatever they want in the W3C.
- tssva 6y ago
  I fail to see how this preserves some ability of Google to do whatever they like at the W3C. I see it as highlighting exactly why Google can't do whatever they like at the W3C. Just as their single vote prevented this change any other single voting organization could block whatever Google wants to do at the W3C.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    The real problem is that Google, due to ownership of Blink/Chrome, has so much power de facto that the W3C process cannot meaningfully prevent them from doing whatever they like anyway - if W3C doesn't follow, it risks a repeat of WHATWG.
    - tssva 6y ago
      I'm not sure why the W3C should have the power to prevent anybody from doing anything.
- refulgentis 6y ago
  Looks like everyone has the right to veto (hence, this outcome from a year and a half ago), and they vetoed forming a small committee that would thus have an exclusive veto. Apple's been kneecapping the web for years with the dual argument "you cant have WebUSB/Bluetooth and be private, permission dialogs don't count." After allowing iOS to make the opposite trade-off while confusingly marketing their phones as "what happens on your phone stays on your phone", and making Facebook a central authentication mechanism in iOS 4 and pushing devs to use it to "hurt Google", allowing them to obfuscate their vetoes via an exclusive smaller group seems blinkered.

spideymans 6y ago

This is precisely why I'm so disappointed in Microsoft for choosing Chromium for Edge. This only gives Google more power to run roughshod over user privacy. I would've much rather seen them adapt WebKit or Gecko for Edge. Chromium doesn't need to be any more powerful. At least will still have Firefox and WebKit to prevent Google from having total reign over user piracy on the web.

kmeisthax 6y ago
The danger from a dearth of independent implementations revolves mostly around programming errors; i.e. if everyone uses Chromium code, and it has a bug with some particular CSS property, it will inevitably become web standard behavior anyway since content will be written to rely upon the bug. (See also: Adobe Flash) It does not foreclose downstream Chromium users' ability to strip out or restrict features they believe to be harmful to user privacy; as all the code is provided under a variety of Free licenses that are specifically designed to allow removing unwanted functionality.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Privacy is as much about adding features as removing them. Rewriting APIs that no one else have the manpower to reimplement and update for decades is a bigger problem than adding privacy invasive features. Google could easily make changes big enough that it would break for example Brave's ability to add the features it wants. Like a new API that cannot be used by adblockers as effective as the old one..
  - spideymans 6y ago
    >Privacy is as much about adding features as removing them This is a perspective that's often missing from discussions surrounding web APIs. These APIs aren't just about what cool new things legitimate developers can do with them. They're also about what they'll enable bad actors to do. APIs must be designed defensively, otherwise we risk users feeling [even more] unsafe on the web.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rafaelturk 6y ago

Can someone elaborate on what was actually vetoed? Article mentions `charter change for the Privacy Interest Group (PING)` not clear for me what it means

fishtoaster 6y ago
Looks like they veto'd giving PING (an interest group within the W3C) veto power. "Google was the only member of the W3C to vote “No” to a proposed charter change for the Privacy Interest Group (PING), a working group of the W3C dedicated to web privacy matters. Concerned that web privacy issues were being routinely ignored by many working groups of the W3C, the Privacy Interest Group sought to expand its charter, such that it would have the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy. "
Guidii 6y ago
Here's what I got from sniffing through the group's posts. The proposed charter is at [0]. Google raised an objection to the charter in [1]. Chris Wilson posted some clarifications in [2] and Daniel Glazmen posted a response/comment in [3]. As far as I can tell, an objection was raised in a consensus-based discussion. I didn't see any evidence of support from the "other 23" or of any actual vote taking place. I'd assume that others would know more about any such details. [0] https://github.com/w3cping/administrivia/blob/process-changes-2019q3/README.md#privacy-review https://github.com/w3cping/administrivia/blob/process-change... [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0055.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0056.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulSep/0057.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2019JulS... (Disclosure: Googler - drawing only from public record, speaking only for myself)

fishtoaster 6y ago

The title seems a bit misleading. If I read this right, Google didn't veto a privacy proposal- it veto'd giving an interest group within the WC3 "the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy." It's still probably bad, I'm quite prepared to believe the spirit of the headline (that google is anti-privacy), but it doesn't seem like this is a case of google directly hurting privacy in web standards.

ogre_codes 6y ago
It is preventing a privacy advocacy group in the W3C from gaining additional influence. I think that's a pretty clear hit to web privacy.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  And also, everyone else voted in favor, so I'm inclined to believe it was a reasonable proposal.
  - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
    yikes, not a fan of that argument as a matter of principle.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      When it comes to privacy, you can safely assume whatever side Google is on is the wrong one, and the one everyone else is on is probably costly to Google's web domination plans.
      - 3np 6y ago
        Depends. When they were struggling with the CCP, eventually getting all their services blocked in Mainland China, I don't think so. There are more examples of situations were Google really does take the other side of the table. It's not helpful to reducing it to these extremes.

015a 6y ago

I do find it rather fitting that Google, of all companies, would take issue with ethical oversignt standing in the way of technical "progress", which was their specious argument for their veto. That essentially describes their entire corporate MO. Their veto being interpreted as anti-privacy is one thing, but their reasoning for the veto is, in my view, even worse. In attempting to steer the conversation away from their anti-privacy stance, they drove straight into a wall of "any kind of ethics in software should be an afterthought". Not good.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

First of all, I've never heard of PING. Second: > Concerned that web privacy issues were being routinely ignored by many working groups of the W3C, the Privacy Interest Group sought to expand its charter, such that it would have the ability to block any new technical specification that it felt would have negative implications for web privacy. This wasn't just that Google "vetoed" a new privacy standard, they actually just vetoed the group's ability to "veto" future standards. Everyone voted for it, except Google. And that was enough to block it. To Google engineers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rasz 6y ago
Did they name themselves after https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_ping.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_ping.asp ? "Specifies the URL to be notified if the user follows the hyperlink. Must be a space separated list of one or more valid URLs" currently used by Google for tracking
vyrotek 6y ago
I was both proud and disappointed that I knew exactly what video that would be before clicking it.
reissbaker 6y ago
I'm not a Google engineer, but this doesn't feel like an "Are we the baddies" moment to me: giving a small group within the W3C the ability to block any technical proposal — including from the article what seems to be as far-reaching as all existing IoT proposals — feels like it strips the W3C of what little utility it has left. If the W3C mandates that everyone has to stop making IoT stuff, it seems unlikely that Google (or anyone else) would stop... Presumably the only thing that would stop would be meaningful W3C discussions about the proposals before they get shipped and become de facto standards, leading to an ever more siloed, fractured web. W3C has repeatedly shot itself in the foot with sweeping mandates that major vendors oppose and which are then ignored; that's the reason we now have the separate WHATWG org and the reason W3C no longer leads much in terms of browser standards. Adding more mandates from tiny players (e.g. Brave) doesn't feel super useful, even if the group is supposedly focused on privacy — although the article even notes that at least part of the desire of the group was for "rivals to limit or handicap the ability of Google to compete against them."

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Yeah, I wouldn't want to give a group optimizing for one dimension veto power over my n-dimensional effort either. Single-issue voters can really gum up the works in a lot of different ways.

renewiltord 6y ago

Is there news from a tech-familiar source? Never mind. I was able to get the info from comments here. It makes sense to No this. Creation of these But First We Must Stamp things on proposals always stalls technical proposals. I'm on Google's side here.

underwater 6y ago

The irony is that Google have the power the block any new technical specification thanks to their monopoly over the browser market. They can just not implement a spec and it's dead.

varispeed 6y ago

Google shouldn't have a right to vote since they have a conflict of interest. I would like to see Google removed from W3C. Absolute shambles!

yumraj 6y ago

How and why does a company get a veto?

jefftk 6y ago
Most W3C members are companies: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List. Each member gets a vote. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- Daho0n 6y ago
  And because most are companies it is dying a slow death.
- yumraj 6y ago
  I understand they get a vote. I was asking why do they get a veto?
  - jefftk 6y ago
    The W3C operates on consensus, which means if any member is opposed a proposal does not go forward.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

random5634 6y ago

Heads up - googles browser, despite not being packaged with Windows or Mac, absolutely dominates market share. They, not these other companies, developed a web browser that people want. The point I'm making - GOOGLE, not these standards bodies decides what is a standard.

mirkules 6y ago
I’ve heard this line before, except back then it was Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
- esrauch 6y ago
  The users didn't choose internet explorer though: the comparison may hold for Android Chrome but not really for Chrome on Windows.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Back when NN and IE were still in heavy competition, users did choose IE - partly because it was better at standards in some respects (ironically), but mostly because it was free. Once that happened, IE-only websites proliferated, effectively locking the users into the ecosystem. We're now seeing the same process play out with Chrome. I agree that Chrome became dominant for better reasons than IE, but the outcome is harmful either way.
kiwijamo 6y ago
Keep in mind Google is the default browser on Android. Many corporates load Chrome as the default browser as part of their setup process for new machines. For many naive people Chrome is the default browser. It's been a long time since I've seen a a windows machine provisioned by a corporate with Edge as the default browser. Many corporates also warn people away from Edge, Safari, Firefox and other "undesirable" browsers. So IMHO it's not demand from people but really for many the decision has been imposed on them by others.
- 6y ago

ggm 6y ago

Rough Consensus is easier than Consensus. Rough consensus is good enough for the IETF. I'm not saying "Veto is evil" but I am unsure this was a wise decision for a policy forum to take. Arguably it is, only fully mutually agreed positions should emerge, but that really is a defence of the status quo, in almost all cases.

hirundo 6y ago

> warning that an eliminated of ubiquitous ad-tracking cookies would mean the end of the web as we know it Much of my paycheck ultimately depends on ad-tracking cookies. My employer might well not survive their elimination. Still, this sounds to me more like an enticement than a warning. Yes, please, let's rebuild the web with only opt-in tracking.

gcb0 6y ago

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here. Every single one of you who use chrome daily, both on desktop or mobile, is directly contributing to Google being able to do this. If Chrome was one of two or three browsers, google would have to at least pretend to play nice. Google is doing exactly what they accused Microsoft of trying to do in the famous Google vs Microsoft, strong arm W3C and define standards in their self interest. At least Microsoft gave us ajax. Google just stole an AGPL browser, changed the license and marketed it heavily with the money they were giving to mozilla.

crazypython 6y ago

Not giving the PING the authority to veto privacy proposals is saying that an API that contravenes privacy is allowed to be in web standards. One of the W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles[0] is that "Security and privacy are essential". This suggests that Google disagrees. [0]: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#privacy https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#priv...

raggi 6y ago

there's a certain irony when i open devtools on this magazines page and see it submitting beacons to third party sites at a rate of >100hz.

jb775 6y ago

> Throughout much of 2019, Internet tech giant Google has attempted to portray itself as a public champion of web privacy Wait did anyone in the world actually believe this? Their primary business model relies on the opposite. The only privacy aspect they would naturally care about is keeping user data private from competitors.