7 ms·

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be trigger

I am a privacy-conscious person but I really wish these debates could be a little more nuanced. This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! IMO I ought to have the ability to cash in some of my privacy chips (so to speak) on a site that I know and trust and that I want extra functionality from. Relatedly, I feel like Safari is heavy-handed in the opposite direction. For example, it removes all locally stored data from a site if it isn't used within 7 days. There are sites I use less frequently than that where I'd still appreciate the ability to save information, but I don't have a choice. It all but guarantees sites need logins, backend storage etc. just to store simple data, which ends up being just as big a privacy danger!

foxfluff 5y ago
> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! Every single feature on the web that gets misused has some useful applications too. For me, the useful applications hardly ever outweigh the downsides. The web has been getting progressively worse and worse.
- afavour 5y ago
  > Every single feature on the web that gets misused has some useful applications too. That's why you have the permission prompt.
mikojan 5y ago
> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! Okay, but you can already do that.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  How? You need a native app gor that. A web app can only know whether a user is actiwe _on the webpage_
  - ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
    The point of an active/away indicator is to indicate whether the recipient of a message is likely to see/respond to the message in real time. If I'm active in another website and have notifications disabled I might not see it.
dheera 5y ago
> active/away status This can easily be abused for stalkerish behavior. Even read receipts in chat apps like Facebook should be able to be disabled by the user. (You can, with some JS injection, but basically that means programmers' privacy is respected and non-programmers' privacy is violated.) Also micromanagement. I once had a coworker who would "pounce" on me when my Slack status became active, instead of respecting the time I needed to code. I had to set my Slack status to always away.
- afavour 5y ago
  > This can easily be abused for stalkerish behavior Well, sure. Any away/active status can be used for bad things. Pretty much any form of text communication can, too. We all opt in and out of things according to our level of comfort, like with the permission prompt this API provides.
  - _jal 5y ago
    Why not add an API to allow servers to request your contact information and creditworthiness? You can just opt out if you're not comfortable with it.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      Seems fine to me if it's opt-in just like the idle-detection API.
    - afavour 5y ago
      Why not debate the API that’s in front of us rather than make up excessive imaginary ones? (besides, payment APIs are already able to request your contact information in order to bill you and ship things to you. And guess what: pretty useful!)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - 5y ago
dmitriid 5y ago
> This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. It really isn't. Some time look at the permissions controls in Chrome. https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 Most of these toggles will pop up a permissions dialog. Trigger enough of those, and the user will either dismiss them automatically or accept automatically.
- afavour 5y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. It absolutely is behind a permission prompt. If you go to the demo site: https://idle-detection.glitch.me/ https://idle-detection.glitch.me/ and click "ephemeral", it shows a prompt next to the address bar saying "idle-detection.glitch.me wants to know when you're actively using this device" and has buttons for "block" and "allow". So I don't know how "it really isn't" could be true in this case.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    What I mean is that there is/will be a permission fatigue
godelski 5y ago
> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! I have an alternative way to do this. Check if a user hasn't interacted with your text box in x period of time. If they haven't, set them to away. I'm sure people can come up with other methods too. It just seems like there's a thousand ways to skin this cat that don't have the same potential for privacy issues.
- darren_ 5y ago
  But this isn't adequate for the IM use case at all? I spend the bulk of my time not focused on my chat app tab(s) but I definitely want to be reported as 'available' by those chat apps, because I am if someone messages me.
  - Lev1a 5y ago
    That usecase could just as easily be solved through this novel concept called "manual override".
    - Talanes 5y ago
      Or you could manually message each of your contacts to let them know when you are available. Or you could physically show up at people's houses to let them know that you are available to talk. There is always a less convenient and more manual way. Pointing that out helps no one.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    So after 20 minutes instead of logging you out the away status is set. Not sure I understand your special case here.
    - darren_ 5y ago
      I don't see what's not to understand or what logging out has to do with it. I have a browser tab for an IM application, that's also available as a native app on my phone. That tab is always open on my desktop. If I have other tabs open and am doing stuff, I still want my IM status to be 'available', and I want all notifications about new chats to go to that tab and to no other devices, while I am on my computer doing stuff. If I go out for a walk or I go watch some TV or otherwise stop using my computer, depending on the chat app I want to either automatically be 'unavailable' (for work chat app), or I want to stay 'available' but have notifications go to my phone instead of the chat tab (for friends' chat apps).
takeda 5y ago
> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! That's exactly how Google uses it. They will make an interesting feature, that absolutely require this to be enabled. It's similar to how to get list of recently watched YouTube video on your phone you need to give permission to Google to log your history, because it's impossible, of course, to store that locally on your phone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- atatatat 5y ago
  Right, but if I use none of their stack, it doesn't affect me. There is a bifurcation of people who want to learn about the tech they use every day, and those that don't. Those that don't can't be saved if they won't grab around for the life raft. Rest of us still want to build PWAs.
  - takeda 5y ago
    You talk like that because you're a front web developer and that's your bread and butter. There are tons of other areas (even in computer science) where you are out of your bubble and you know nothing about. Similarly, there are people who don't work on websites, writing javascript, in fact they think they think those people are dumb monkeys who can't even make their stuff work on all browsers. They don't care about latest features, in fact they prefer browser being a dumb tool to view websites not a replacement for an OS.
jan_Inkepa 5y ago
Yeah, explicit confirmation is nice. However this is assuming Chrome won't have a whitelist of favoured domains that can bypass permission prompts like it has for other features (audio auto-play, and I believe also some VR-functionality, probably other things on top since I last checked). I gave the linked pages a quick look but it looks like the feature is still being worked on, and...I'm too tired to look through draft spec documents right now...
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Or "productivity software" that queries browsers and use time. Sure, the employee could click 'no'...
sys_64738 5y ago
No web page needs this feature. If we think they do then we’ve missed the turn off somewhere. A web page is for consumption and not being spied on.
somehnacct3757 5y ago
The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse yet is if you try to complain, they can shift the conversation by saying the ability is there for websites behind a permission dialog, and of course they take user privacy seriously. Basically exactly what you've done! I don't think it's paranoid to assume nefarious intent because web devs weren't asking for this functionality nor was it impossible before. You add a mouse listener to the page, you check document.hidden, etc. With so many techniques already available ask yourself: why did Google spend time building this? And why didn't they consult other web stakeholders?
- omgitsabird 5y ago
  Meh, there is so much telemetry pouring out of Chrome, if this wasn't already a capability of the people interpreting that data, I would be surprised.
- AgentME 5y ago
  If the feature only tracks idleness when the user has been appropriately asked, then why care? It sounds like you're just worried instead by a potential future version that works with a completely different permission model and use-case. I don't think that's any more useful to worry about than "what if Google decides to just send someone a virus with their auto updates?" (well ok, maybe that's kind of interesting to worry about but it's not especially related to this API). >I don't think it's paranoid to assume nefarious intent because web devs weren't asking for this functionality I use chat webapps occasionally like Discord and it would be very useful there. Right now I usually use the desktop application which is basically a wrapper around the web app with a few more abilities like idleness tracking. It would be nice if the web app could have that functionality so I don't have to run an unsandboxed executable on my computer with access to all my files just for it. >nor was it impossible before. You add a mouse listener to the page, you check document.hidden, etc. That only tracks idleness within the current tab, not the whole device. For chat applications that difference is important.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

foxfluff 5y ago

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! Every single feature on the web that gets misused has some useful applications too. For me, the useful applications hardly ever outweigh the downsides. The web has been getting progressively worse and worse.

afavour 5y ago
> Every single feature on the web that gets misused has some useful applications too. That's why you have the permission prompt.

mikojan 5y ago

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! Okay, but you can already do that.

occamrazor 5y ago
How? You need a native app gor that. A web app can only know whether a user is actiwe _on the webpage_
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  The point of an active/away indicator is to indicate whether the recipient of a message is likely to see/respond to the message in real time. If I'm active in another website and have notifications disabled I might not see it.

dheera 5y ago

> active/away status This can easily be abused for stalkerish behavior. Even read receipts in chat apps like Facebook should be able to be disabled by the user. (You can, with some JS injection, but basically that means programmers' privacy is respected and non-programmers' privacy is violated.) Also micromanagement. I once had a coworker who would "pounce" on me when my Slack status became active, instead of respecting the time I needed to code. I had to set my Slack status to always away.

afavour 5y ago
> This can easily be abused for stalkerish behavior Well, sure. Any away/active status can be used for bad things. Pretty much any form of text communication can, too. We all opt in and out of things according to our level of comfort, like with the permission prompt this API provides.
- _jal 5y ago
  Why not add an API to allow servers to request your contact information and creditworthiness? You can just opt out if you're not comfortable with it.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    Seems fine to me if it's opt-in just like the idle-detection API.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Why not debate the API that’s in front of us rather than make up excessive imaginary ones? (besides, payment APIs are already able to request your contact information in order to bill you and ship things to you. And guess what: pretty useful!)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - 5y ago

dmitriid 5y ago

> This API is behind a permission prompt that can only be triggered in response to a user gesture, so the bar to entry is high. It really isn't. Some time look at the permissions controls in Chrome. https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1434086651362430976?s=20 Most of these toggles will pop up a permissions dialog. Trigger enough of those, and the user will either dismiss them automatically or accept automatically.

afavour 5y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. It absolutely is behind a permission prompt. If you go to the demo site: https://idle-detection.glitch.me/ https://idle-detection.glitch.me/ and click "ephemeral", it shows a prompt next to the address bar saying "idle-detection.glitch.me wants to know when you're actively using this device" and has buttons for "block" and "allow". So I don't know how "it really isn't" could be true in this case.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  What I mean is that there is/will be a permission fatigue

godelski 5y ago

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! I have an alternative way to do this. Check if a user hasn't interacted with your text box in x period of time. If they haven't, set them to away. I'm sure people can come up with other methods too. It just seems like there's a thousand ways to skin this cat that don't have the same potential for privacy issues.

darren_ 5y ago
But this isn't adequate for the IM use case at all? I spend the bulk of my time not focused on my chat app tab(s) but I definitely want to be reported as 'available' by those chat apps, because I am if someone messages me.
- Lev1a 5y ago
  That usecase could just as easily be solved through this novel concept called "manual override".
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Or you could manually message each of your contacts to let them know when you are available. Or you could physically show up at people's houses to let them know that you are available to talk. There is always a less convenient and more manual way. Pointing that out helps no one.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  So after 20 minutes instead of logging you out the away status is set. Not sure I understand your special case here.
  - darren_ 5y ago
    I don't see what's not to understand or what logging out has to do with it. I have a browser tab for an IM application, that's also available as a native app on my phone. That tab is always open on my desktop. If I have other tabs open and am doing stuff, I still want my IM status to be 'available', and I want all notifications about new chats to go to that tab and to no other devices, while I am on my computer doing stuff. If I go out for a walk or I go watch some TV or otherwise stop using my computer, depending on the chat app I want to either automatically be 'unavailable' (for work chat app), or I want to stay 'available' but have notifications go to my phone instead of the chat tab (for friends' chat apps).

takeda 5y ago

> The example on web.dev is a chat app that would automatically set an active/away status: seems useful! That's exactly how Google uses it. They will make an interesting feature, that absolutely require this to be enabled. It's similar to how to get list of recently watched YouTube video on your phone you need to give permission to Google to log your history, because it's impossible, of course, to store that locally on your phone.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
atatatat 5y ago
Right, but if I use none of their stack, it doesn't affect me. There is a bifurcation of people who want to learn about the tech they use every day, and those that don't. Those that don't can't be saved if they won't grab around for the life raft. Rest of us still want to build PWAs.
- takeda 5y ago
  You talk like that because you're a front web developer and that's your bread and butter. There are tons of other areas (even in computer science) where you are out of your bubble and you know nothing about. Similarly, there are people who don't work on websites, writing javascript, in fact they think they think those people are dumb monkeys who can't even make their stuff work on all browsers. They don't care about latest features, in fact they prefer browser being a dumb tool to view websites not a replacement for an OS.

jan_Inkepa 5y ago

Yeah, explicit confirmation is nice. However this is assuming Chrome won't have a whitelist of favoured domains that can bypass permission prompts like it has for other features (audio auto-play, and I believe also some VR-functionality, probably other things on top since I last checked). I gave the linked pages a quick look but it looks like the feature is still being worked on, and...I'm too tired to look through draft spec documents right now...

raxxorrax 5y ago
Or "productivity software" that queries browsers and use time. Sure, the employee could click 'no'...

sys_64738 5y ago

No web page needs this feature. If we think they do then we’ve missed the turn off somewhere. A web page is for consumption and not being spied on.

somehnacct3757 5y ago

The privacy problem isn't that Chrome is offering this permission to websites, it's that they built it into the browser at all. Now their browser, regardless of whether you're using any websites with this permission granted or not, has code that tracks if you're idle or not. There's no bar of entry whatsoever for this. Chrome will automatically update itself to Chrome 94 and voila - it tracks your idle status. Worse yet is if you try to complain, they can shift the conversation by saying the ability is there for websites behind a permission dialog, and of course they take user privacy seriously. Basically exactly what you've done! I don't think it's paranoid to assume nefarious intent because web devs weren't asking for this functionality nor was it impossible before. You add a mouse listener to the page, you check document.hidden, etc. With so many techniques already available ask yourself: why did Google spend time building this? And why didn't they consult other web stakeholders?

omgitsabird 5y ago
Meh, there is so much telemetry pouring out of Chrome, if this wasn't already a capability of the people interpreting that data, I would be surprised.
AgentME 5y ago
If the feature only tracks idleness when the user has been appropriately asked, then why care? It sounds like you're just worried instead by a potential future version that works with a completely different permission model and use-case. I don't think that's any more useful to worry about than "what if Google decides to just send someone a virus with their auto updates?" (well ok, maybe that's kind of interesting to worry about but it's not especially related to this API). >I don't think it's paranoid to assume nefarious intent because web devs weren't asking for this functionality I use chat webapps occasionally like Discord and it would be very useful there. Right now I usually use the desktop application which is basically a wrapper around the web app with a few more abilities like idleness tracking. It would be nice if the web app could have that functionality so I don't have to run an unsandboxed executable on my computer with access to all my files just for it. >nor was it impossible before. You add a mouse listener to the page, you check document.hidden, etc. That only tracks idleness within the current tab, not the whole device. For chat applications that difference is important.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]