4 ms·

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 Privac

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."
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  > it strips the W3C of what little utility it has left You hit on it right there. There is no more such a thing as "web standards" that the W3C can agree on and push forward. There are "web standards" that Google wants and that's it. If the W3C ratifies them, great. But really it doesn't matter at all.
  - Ajedi32 6y ago
    Exactly. The W3C is an industry standards group, not a regulatory body. Trying to pretend otherwise (as this proposal did) seems not only pointless, but also antithetical to the purpose of the organization.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    That happened way before google came on the scene. W3C has never been a particularly effective standards body (rip XHTML). WHATWG didn't just appear from the void for no reason. That said, its a standards body. If you arent standardizing what the majority of the marketshare web browser vendors want, you're not creating standards, just pipe dreams. Consensus is what a standard is. It is not the same thing as regulation.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      Back when WHATWG was organized, I thought similarly. But in retrospect, it was a mistake. W3C moved slowly, yes - but the result was an actual standard. Now, it's a target moving so fast, and with so many evolutionary dead ends, that we're back to the days of "this site is best viewed in ...". Google profits from this in two ways. Because they own the largest browser by market share, the ... is usually that, making other browsers less viable. But in addition to that, this significantly raised the barrier to entry for any competing browsers - remember what happened to Edge?
      - bawolff 6y ago
        > but the result was an actual standard Was it though? At a minimum i think a "standard" is a document detailing the behaviour of at least two competiting implementations sufficiently that you could use it to make a new implementation that was interopable. I don't think that was true of W3C standards in the pre WHATWG days. Compare it to say the HTTP rfcs, which i think did meet that standard.
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
> To Google engineers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA Love that piece!
hda2 6y ago
> First of all, I've never heard of PING. Doesn't surprise me given how neutered it is. I wonder whether google considered the alternative (government intervention) when the vetoed this.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"First of all, I've never heard of PING." It is open to the public and there is actually a PING conference call scheduled for tomorrow (link to agenda below). From the PING Charter: "Participation Participation in PING is open to the public. Participants who do not represent a W3C Member should join as Invited Experts. Invited Experts in this group are not granted access to Member-only information. Anyone may subscribe to the group's public mailing list and engage in discussion. Those who intend to contribute to deliverables will be asked to join the group. Communication This group conducts its work on the public mailing list public-privacy and in periodic teleconferences, typically 1-2 times per month. Additionally, the group meets face to face at TPAC. PING is experimenting with using a free Slack workspace - interesting discussions from Slack will be called out to the mailing list, and decisions will not be finalized based solely on Slack discussions. Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the PING home page. Decision Policy As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions by consensus. When the Chairs put a question and observe dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chairs should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on." PING mailing list archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/ https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/ Agenda for next meeting 21 Jan 2021: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2021JanMar/0006.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2021JanM... W3C's "Privacy Threat Model" https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/ https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/ W3C's "Fingerpringinting Guidance": https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/ https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/ https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove

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."

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
> it strips the W3C of what little utility it has left You hit on it right there. There is no more such a thing as "web standards" that the W3C can agree on and push forward. There are "web standards" that Google wants and that's it. If the W3C ratifies them, great. But really it doesn't matter at all.
- Ajedi32 6y ago
  Exactly. The W3C is an industry standards group, not a regulatory body. Trying to pretend otherwise (as this proposal did) seems not only pointless, but also antithetical to the purpose of the organization.
- bawolff 6y ago
  That happened way before google came on the scene. W3C has never been a particularly effective standards body (rip XHTML). WHATWG didn't just appear from the void for no reason. That said, its a standards body. If you arent standardizing what the majority of the marketshare web browser vendors want, you're not creating standards, just pipe dreams. Consensus is what a standard is. It is not the same thing as regulation.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Back when WHATWG was organized, I thought similarly. But in retrospect, it was a mistake. W3C moved slowly, yes - but the result was an actual standard. Now, it's a target moving so fast, and with so many evolutionary dead ends, that we're back to the days of "this site is best viewed in ...". Google profits from this in two ways. Because they own the largest browser by market share, the ... is usually that, making other browsers less viable. But in addition to that, this significantly raised the barrier to entry for any competing browsers - remember what happened to Edge?
    - bawolff 6y ago
      > but the result was an actual standard Was it though? At a minimum i think a "standard" is a document detailing the behaviour of at least two competiting implementations sufficiently that you could use it to make a new implementation that was interopable. I don't think that was true of W3C standards in the pre WHATWG days. Compare it to say the HTTP rfcs, which i think did meet that standard.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

> To Google engineers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA Love that piece!

hda2 6y ago

> First of all, I've never heard of PING. Doesn't surprise me given how neutered it is. I wonder whether google considered the alternative (government intervention) when the vetoed this.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"First of all, I've never heard of PING." It is open to the public and there is actually a PING conference call scheduled for tomorrow (link to agenda below). From the PING Charter: "Participation Participation in PING is open to the public. Participants who do not represent a W3C Member should join as Invited Experts. Invited Experts in this group are not granted access to Member-only information. Anyone may subscribe to the group's public mailing list and engage in discussion. Those who intend to contribute to deliverables will be asked to join the group. Communication This group conducts its work on the public mailing list public-privacy and in periodic teleconferences, typically 1-2 times per month. Additionally, the group meets face to face at TPAC. PING is experimenting with using a free Slack workspace - interesting discussions from Slack will be called out to the mailing list, and decisions will not be finalized based solely on Slack discussions. Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the PING home page. Decision Policy As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions by consensus. When the Chairs put a question and observe dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chairs should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on." PING mailing list archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/ https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/ Agenda for next meeting 21 Jan 2021: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2021JanMar/0006.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2021JanM... W3C's "Privacy Threat Model" https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/ https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/ W3C's "Fingerpringinting Guidance": https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/ https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/ https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/pigin https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove