6 ms·

> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significan

> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies That makes it _really_ hard to believe they're debating in good faith. Anyway the entire thread makes it sound like they're temporarily backing down but still intenting to implement something similar in the future:.

tjpnz 3y ago
>who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses While benefiting unethical businesses like Google? That's called a cartel.
beej71 3y ago
In my town, a couple (both doctors) unilaterally gated a forest service road that led to a popular outdoor area used by the citizens for years. Apparently rights of way are tough to determine on this road that's well over a century old, but the Forest is working on it. In the meantime, the doctors' business were figuratively destroyed and their property vandalized. [I don't approve of illegal actions.] And I think they're genuinely confused by the reaction of the general public. They are so far out of touch, they just can't understand. Google pushing things like this and being surprised by the violent backlash has the same feel.
- zx8080 3y ago
  > violent backlash There's no backlash. Is there anyone stating to stop buying Google Ads? Moving to Firefox (since there's no else alternative non-Google-chromium-based browser out there)? Except the HN audience, if course. There's no danger from "users" for Google. Because their users are huge enterprises paging billions for ads. Not us. DRM is what banks love. Recently, there're several major banks' mobile apps in Singapore stopped working as they started scanning all apps installed on a device, and some they don't like (MS Authenticator, for instance; F-Droid, and any opensource apk from there, also any developers installed app). This is nightmare as mobile bank apps are a first class citizen now. Web just does not open without push dialog. Not sms otp anymore, but the app push dialog. The only way to handle it is to buy a cheapest android and install all bank apps there.
  - marak830 3y ago
    Wait what? Do you have any further details about the f-droid and Ms auth? Damnit I'm going to have to do a PSA at work if this is true.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > DRM is what banks love. > Recently, there're several major banks' mobile apps in Singapore stopped working as they started scanning all apps installed on a device, and some they don't like This seriously triggers me. I can't even enable developer mode on my phone without these apps flipping out. Banks in my country (Brazil) have a long standing tradition of doing this. Even on PCs they have these asinine "security plugins" for browsers. You literally cannot log into their systems without the goddamn thing installed. Not a single person managed to explain to me what they do, so years ago I was bored at work and tried my hand at reverse engineering the plugin to figure out why it made the computer so unusably slow. I caught it intercepting every single network connection. Didn't bother to check anything else. Just assumed it was phoning home with private information and started treating it like the malware it is from then on. Actually switched banks to one which didn't require this crap. These freaking banks think their "fraud prevention" justifies anything. There's a package for this "banking security tool" in the Arch User Repository. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw-bin https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw-bin Who the hell knows what this thing does nowadays? Maybe it doesn't monitor people anymore, it's been years and we even have a GDPR equivalent now. But I will never install it.
    - zx8080 3y ago
      What's the country mentioned above with the mandatory bank security plugins?
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Brazil. Check this out. They even have a Linux support page, complete with screenshots depicting it running as root. https://seg.bb.com.br/duvidas.html?question=10 https://seg.bb.com.br/duvidas.html?question=10 https://seg.bb.com.br/img/faq/linux/verificar_modulo2.png https://seg.bb.com.br/img/faq/linux/verificar_modulo2.png I looked it up the package I posted above and found a gist with the unpacked contents: https://gist.github.com/fititnt/8d94b0574c6a4ec7e8c4088c64743969 https://gist.github.com/fititnt/8d94b0574c6a4ec7e8c4088c6474... Literally asks for your root password, downloads some proprietary software off the internet and runs them without even computing checksums or anything. Corporation that made this thing is owned by Diebold, the corporation that made our voting machines. Bone chilling.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  The Verheydens?
keepamovin 3y ago
They're saying anything that disagrees with them is bullying and criminal. But, labelling anything that disagrees with them as bullying, is a bullying tactic to try to silence dissent. Why do they want to silence opposition? Because their position does not stand up to scrutiny.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >They're saying anything that disagrees with them is bullying and criminal. That is not want was said. People making direct and indirect threats against the author are not acting in good faith and want to just silence the author without anyone fairly evaluating the proposal. >Why do they want to silence opposition? Threats are not productive for deciding if a proposal should be adopted. They are just noise. Wanting to get rid of noise and focus on signal is not "silencing opposition."
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    > People making direct and indirect threats against the author Indeed that would be the case if that were so, yet it looks like what actually occurred here is the author is abusing the labelling of bullying and criminal in order to falsely tar all disagreement as that. This labelling abuse is itself a bullying act designed to intimidate and shame into silence any disagreement by misrepresenting it as a threat. Which is itself a threat: agree with me or I will accuse you of evil and silence you. That's what it seemed like at the time. Let's note that the quoted comments are from a months' old thread. Do you have any evidence to support your claim about there being direct and indirect threats?
    - cbolton 3y ago
      In the linked Groups post, the author reports "physical threats and other forms of abuse". I find that very easy to believe and your post reads very uncharitable, unless you have concrete reasons to think that the author is lying.
      - 3y ago
stodor89 3y ago
Justifying shady corporate practices by pretending to stand the moral high-ground is nothing new. Just recall Apple's child pornography nonsense. "We are introducing web DRM to protect users from those evil people out there..." The hell you are.

tjpnz 3y ago

>who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses While benefiting unethical businesses like Google? That's called a cartel.

beej71 3y ago

In my town, a couple (both doctors) unilaterally gated a forest service road that led to a popular outdoor area used by the citizens for years. Apparently rights of way are tough to determine on this road that's well over a century old, but the Forest is working on it. In the meantime, the doctors' business were figuratively destroyed and their property vandalized. [I don't approve of illegal actions.] And I think they're genuinely confused by the reaction of the general public. They are so far out of touch, they just can't understand. Google pushing things like this and being surprised by the violent backlash has the same feel.

zx8080 3y ago
> violent backlash There's no backlash. Is there anyone stating to stop buying Google Ads? Moving to Firefox (since there's no else alternative non-Google-chromium-based browser out there)? Except the HN audience, if course. There's no danger from "users" for Google. Because their users are huge enterprises paging billions for ads. Not us. DRM is what banks love. Recently, there're several major banks' mobile apps in Singapore stopped working as they started scanning all apps installed on a device, and some they don't like (MS Authenticator, for instance; F-Droid, and any opensource apk from there, also any developers installed app). This is nightmare as mobile bank apps are a first class citizen now. Web just does not open without push dialog. Not sms otp anymore, but the app push dialog. The only way to handle it is to buy a cheapest android and install all bank apps there.
- marak830 3y ago
  Wait what? Do you have any further details about the f-droid and Ms auth? Damnit I'm going to have to do a PSA at work if this is true.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > DRM is what banks love. > Recently, there're several major banks' mobile apps in Singapore stopped working as they started scanning all apps installed on a device, and some they don't like This seriously triggers me. I can't even enable developer mode on my phone without these apps flipping out. Banks in my country (Brazil) have a long standing tradition of doing this. Even on PCs they have these asinine "security plugins" for browsers. You literally cannot log into their systems without the goddamn thing installed. Not a single person managed to explain to me what they do, so years ago I was bored at work and tried my hand at reverse engineering the plugin to figure out why it made the computer so unusably slow. I caught it intercepting every single network connection. Didn't bother to check anything else. Just assumed it was phoning home with private information and started treating it like the malware it is from then on. Actually switched banks to one which didn't require this crap. These freaking banks think their "fraud prevention" justifies anything. There's a package for this "banking security tool" in the Arch User Repository. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw-bin https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw-bin Who the hell knows what this thing does nowadays? Maybe it doesn't monitor people anymore, it's been years and we even have a GDPR equivalent now. But I will never install it.
  - zx8080 3y ago
    What's the country mentioned above with the mandatory bank security plugins?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Brazil. Check this out. They even have a Linux support page, complete with screenshots depicting it running as root. https://seg.bb.com.br/duvidas.html?question=10 https://seg.bb.com.br/duvidas.html?question=10 https://seg.bb.com.br/img/faq/linux/verificar_modulo2.png https://seg.bb.com.br/img/faq/linux/verificar_modulo2.png I looked it up the package I posted above and found a gist with the unpacked contents: https://gist.github.com/fititnt/8d94b0574c6a4ec7e8c4088c64743969 https://gist.github.com/fititnt/8d94b0574c6a4ec7e8c4088c6474... Literally asks for your root password, downloads some proprietary software off the internet and runs them without even computing checksums or anything. Corporation that made this thing is owned by Diebold, the corporation that made our voting machines. Bone chilling.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
The Verheydens?

keepamovin 3y ago

They're saying anything that disagrees with them is bullying and criminal. But, labelling anything that disagrees with them as bullying, is a bullying tactic to try to silence dissent. Why do they want to silence opposition? Because their position does not stand up to scrutiny.

charcircuit 3y ago
>They're saying anything that disagrees with them is bullying and criminal. That is not want was said. People making direct and indirect threats against the author are not acting in good faith and want to just silence the author without anyone fairly evaluating the proposal. >Why do they want to silence opposition? Threats are not productive for deciding if a proposal should be adopted. They are just noise. Wanting to get rid of noise and focus on signal is not "silencing opposition."
- keepamovin 3y ago
  > People making direct and indirect threats against the author Indeed that would be the case if that were so, yet it looks like what actually occurred here is the author is abusing the labelling of bullying and criminal in order to falsely tar all disagreement as that. This labelling abuse is itself a bullying act designed to intimidate and shame into silence any disagreement by misrepresenting it as a threat. Which is itself a threat: agree with me or I will accuse you of evil and silence you. That's what it seemed like at the time. Let's note that the quoted comments are from a months' old thread. Do you have any evidence to support your claim about there being direct and indirect threats?
  - cbolton 3y ago
    In the linked Groups post, the author reports "physical threats and other forms of abuse". I find that very easy to believe and your post reads very uncharitable, unless you have concrete reasons to think that the author is lying.
    - 3y ago

stodor89 3y ago

Justifying shady corporate practices by pretending to stand the moral high-ground is nothing new. Just recall Apple's child pornography nonsense. "We are introducing web DRM to protect users from those evil people out there..." The hell you are.