Hacker News Reader

Comment by dns_snek | Hacker News Reader

I mean, really? Let's see, Google is trying to force through Web Environment Integrity which would eventually obliterate any remaining semblance of privacy on the web, it has historically disrespected GDPR, it's trying to work around GDPR with a so-called "Privacy Sandbox" which is anything but, it's trying to sunset Manifest v3 which will take power away from Chrome users, just to name a few current & recent developments.

This is not an image/PR issue, Google really is doing Evil™ things.

View on HN

> Google is trying to force through Web Environment Integrity which would eventually obliterate any remaining semblance of privacy on the web,

How so?

Assuming good faith, the technology makes it possible for your browser, OS and hardware to attest that the website is running in a certain type of environment (e.g. not a bot/scraper) which could be trivially extended to attestations such as "No, this client isn't using an ad blocker". It takes even more control away from users by having their own hardware snitch on them.

You can reference numerous previous discussions on HN regarding WEI for more information.

They withdraw it somewhere between 2-6 weeks ago due to the reaction.

I used to work at Google, I got over the initial 'gee we're pretty nice and concerned' thing, but would like to gently point out the tendency of people to be slightly histrionic and misinformed about it. The gap between what it was, briefly, and the confidence you have in its intent and current state are quite wide. Certainly well-intentioned and appreciated, but ultimately alarmist and inaccurate.

I know the current iteration of WEI was withdrawn and I don't claim to know what their current intentions are. They might be completely innocent, but the fact is that WEI would pave the way for abuse. Once the core functionality is there, there's an obvious financial incentive for them to start expanding WEI in order to boost their advertising revenue.

These types of ideas with significant potential for abuse should be introduced with extreme caution and with at least majority agreement of everyone affected. Instead Google tried to pull a fast one and refused to engage criticisms in good faith. My response might seem alarmist at first glance, but I don't think that's a fair accusation given Google's behavior. I expect this proposal to return under a different name once everyone's forgotten about it and I hope the backlash then will be as severe as it was against WEI.

> attest that the website is running in a certain type of environment (e.g. not a bot/scraper)

> No, this client isn't using an ad blocker

Sure, but I still fail to see how it would "obliterate any remaining semblance of privacy on the web".

Google is a company that, over the years, employed over a million unique human beings. In such a population you’re bound to find some that would sell their own mother for a promo.

WEI is following Apple’s lead isn’t it? But unlike Apple, Google got pushback and abandoned it.

When it comes to GDPR, that’s even funnier. Most companies woke up in 2018 and looked for a way to brush this off. My org in Google was investing serious development (we’re talking engineer-years, don’t know how many) into GDPR compliance in 2015. And that’s not some superficial fronted tweak. I’m talking about adding data removal to analytical storage, something where first design assumption was that it has immutable append-only history.

Manifest v3… I don’t understand what are they trying to achieve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com