5 ms·

The problem is that no one can guarantee that the "opt-out" choice will continue to be there in the foreseeable future. What will happen when, suddenly Mozilla

by saganus 12y ago

The problem is that no one can guarantee that the "opt-out" choice will continue to be there in the foreseeable future. What will happen when, suddenly Mozilla starts "feeling the pressure" to remove that option? What then? The problem is the building's foundations, not the decoration.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kbuck 12y ago
This seems unlikely, and in fact, Firefox has been moving in the opposite direction with other binary components (Flash, Java, Silverlight). Newer builds of Firefox require you to explicitly confirm that you'd like to allow <site> to execute plugin code. I doubt this will change any time soon. I'd rather have a (albeit stupid) DRM executable that only performs encryption/decryption than Flash, Java, or Silverlight, which are the current solutions for this. All three of these offer APIs for doing things other than decrypting DRM content, and these APIs have been proven time and time again to be vulnerable to attack, no matter how much time is spent trying to sandbox them properly.
marcosdumay 12y ago
The proposal has an inherent opt-out choice. Content providers provide media within DRM containers, users can choose if they get the media or not. It's not like anybody can force you to watch the last Hollywood stuff.
- nullc 12y ago
  In other implementations you can't tell if its using the DRM or not. In the land of PDF you can find things like random federal agencies slapping the protection bits on complete inexplicable things, even though the content is public domain by law. ... just because the knob is there. The 'you can not use it' opt-out ignores the cost of actually discovering that you should. The Mozilla proposal is better than that because it will tell you. This still doesn't solve all the issues, but its better than you'll find in other popular browsers.
kevingadd 12y ago
It's open source - actually open source. If they make the CDM on by default, you change a bool in the .cpp file and recompile it. Really, come on. You should understand this. Firefox isn't like Chromium, where the 'blessed' Google version, Chrome, has dozens of important features sitting behind proprietary black boxes - the Firefox you download off Mozilla's website is something you could literally compile yourself. I've compiled Firefox dozens of times, sometimes with in-development patches for things like gamepad support added in. Your fear is pure paranoia.
gizmo686 12y ago
Who would be pressuring Mozilla to remove the option?
- wolfgke 12y ago
  The users. If all browsers implement DRM, what reason is there to stay on Firefox?
- Grue3 12y ago
  Who pressured Mozilla to remove the option to turn off Javascript? To have tabs on bottom? Nobody complained about these options, they decided to remove them themselves.

by saganus 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kbuck 12y ago

This seems unlikely, and in fact, Firefox has been moving in the opposite direction with other binary components (Flash, Java, Silverlight). Newer builds of Firefox require you to explicitly confirm that you'd like to allow <site> to execute plugin code. I doubt this will change any time soon. I'd rather have a (albeit stupid) DRM executable that only performs encryption/decryption than Flash, Java, or Silverlight, which are the current solutions for this. All three of these offer APIs for doing things other than decrypting DRM content, and these APIs have been proven time and time again to be vulnerable to attack, no matter how much time is spent trying to sandbox them properly.

marcosdumay 12y ago

The proposal has an inherent opt-out choice. Content providers provide media within DRM containers, users can choose if they get the media or not. It's not like anybody can force you to watch the last Hollywood stuff.

nullc 12y ago
In other implementations you can't tell if its using the DRM or not. In the land of PDF you can find things like random federal agencies slapping the protection bits on complete inexplicable things, even though the content is public domain by law. ... just because the knob is there. The 'you can not use it' opt-out ignores the cost of actually discovering that you should. The Mozilla proposal is better than that because it will tell you. This still doesn't solve all the issues, but its better than you'll find in other popular browsers.

kevingadd 12y ago

It's open source - actually open source. If they make the CDM on by default, you change a bool in the .cpp file and recompile it. Really, come on. You should understand this. Firefox isn't like Chromium, where the 'blessed' Google version, Chrome, has dozens of important features sitting behind proprietary black boxes - the Firefox you download off Mozilla's website is something you could literally compile yourself. I've compiled Firefox dozens of times, sometimes with in-development patches for things like gamepad support added in. Your fear is pure paranoia.

gizmo686 12y ago

Who would be pressuring Mozilla to remove the option?

wolfgke 12y ago
The users. If all browsers implement DRM, what reason is there to stay on Firefox?
Grue3 12y ago
Who pressured Mozilla to remove the option to turn off Javascript? To have tabs on bottom? Nobody complained about these options, they decided to remove them themselves.