daurentius523

7 ms·

31.
by daurentius523 3y ago
> Apple's market share in the US smartphone market is at almost 58%. And less than 30% worldwide. > and PC where you can switch browser. Under condition that you are not using anything other than Windows/ChromeOS - then no m
32.
by daurentius523 3y ago
> How is it worse when Google wants to implement something that Apple already did? P.S. It isn't worse - both are terrible and both should ultimately be scrapped. Just because one company invents invasive bs doesn't give rest r
33.
by daurentius523 3y ago
> disqualifying someone because they didn't introduce security flaws. Actually they did introduce a giant security flaw: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36985317 Because of this I propose that "the users s
34.
by daurentius523 3y ago
>I mean it's bad but being number two to implement it Number is irrelevant - power is. >seems like the regulators should look at Apple first, not Google. If some one person company proposed this instead, would you want regulators
35.
by daurentius523 3y ago
Part 1: > They cannot prevent websites from requiring X to access their sites. They can by lowering amount of signals site gets - so to make it impossible to guess what client is running. > There is no workable solution to force someo
36.
by daurentius523 3y ago
Part 2: > Yet a lot people seemingly know its going to do this, that, and some other bad thing Original https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935843 New Because any other option is not sensible: 1. Authors don't un
37.
by daurentius523 3y ago
>It is up for attestors to compete in providing a valuable signal to sites. right because users will chose attestor - oh wait they will not. This system is designed (at least in Chrome) with PLATFORMS in mind not independent attestors -
38.
by daurentius523 3y ago
There are seriously so many conflicting informations that this should be hanged from implementation before it its fully formulated (aside fact that it is bad idea and should be scrapped). Firstly on Android Chrome implementation (testing)
39.
by daurentius523 3y ago
>The whole point of Android certification is that you are following Google's rules. Whole point of WEI is that you are following Google's rules. You essentially acknowledged that YOU CANNOT become manufacturer - you become subc
40.
by daurentius523 3y ago
Right because Microsoft and Google don't mandate what can and cannot be installed by manufacturer… oh wait.
41.
by daurentius523 3y ago
This will be hard as: The attester verdict is an abstract concept that refers to the response from attester. It reports how much an attester trusts the web environment the user agent is executing in. The web environment is defined as TODO [
42.
by daurentius523 3y ago
> By Anyone I didn't mean end-users. then it isn't anyone. >and the same can happen in the WEI case too It is impossible to happen in this case. If client has to be certified, then as product OS must be certified out-of-the-
43.
by daurentius523 3y ago
>That innkeeper would have used the signal of how the visitor looks Not like that ever backfired. >inkeeper would be able to tell assuming that he have photographic memory and visitor did not change his looks by any way (shaving, gett
44.
by daurentius523 3y ago
"anyone can become an "attester"" - and no site has to respect that. Read between the lines - using TLS as example: I can attest that my site is my by being self-certified but no browser will accept that - as my certific
45.
by daurentius523 3y ago
Let me ask you instead: "how you intend to prevent matrimonial fraud?" … You can not. Because that is not how world works - crime did happen, happens, and will happen. You can stop attempts or fight it by education or by arresting
46.
by daurentius523 3y ago
Because any other option is not sensible: 1. Authors don't understand what tech they use. (I will leave it to your belief - but that would be even worse for Internet) 2. Authors don't understand that something unrealistic is unrea