icecream_so_gud

It's partially babysitting. But also waiting for them to mature. They might make a great mechanic, truck driver or factory worker, all valid good and required jobs, but at 13-14 it is unsafe or they're not mature enough to drive or operate heavy machinery.

Slow walking someone through learning a vocation over 2-4 years while sprinkling in some academic outcomes is a good option.

There are social pressures why a kid wouldn't want to move between tracks. All their friends are there.

They may also want to avoid moving to a higher track to avoid teasing from colleagues for being a "smarty-pants" or perceived as too good for the friend group.

The people who run today's society use the creations of yesterday's gifted and motivated, along with their own, important, incremental updates.

The people who create tomorrow's society are the gifted and motivated here now.

In generality they might believe the law will catch up to them. However, they would have chosen to steal bread from this store this time because it would minimize getting caught. But I agree with your point.

There are people in prisons who are wholly innocent as well.

While punishment may lead to justice it is not required for justice to take place. What is required is accountability, rehabilitation and restitution. The current focus from the public appears to be, instead, retribution. That seems to be insatiable for those who have been transgressed.

None of this requires the use of prisons. Although in the case of offenders likely to commit more violent crimes while justice is sort for previous offenses it, appears, to be our currently best way of management.

Similar to how the aim of schooling is to create citizens who can engage productively in society; the focus of prisons should be on recreating productive citizens.

Prisons don't deter crime. They might give the impression of deterrence to honest individuals. However, I think everyone in prison believed they had a scheme, process, or system in order to evade detection; believed what they were doing was on the boundary of the law, but inside it; or they committed a crime of passion.

I wish a similar system also existed for account recovery instead of being stonewalled by customer service I might be able to recover some years old accounts

Adversarial compatibility is a good thing for users.

If the site doesn't want to implement what your extension would do then either they will try to shake you down, buy you out, or implement the feature on their site. The latter two seem like a positive for you.

I shared the content of an email I sent out to a few different groups the other day here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36888156&p=2#36889971

There were some reasonable criticism that it was too long/wordy hopefully you can adapt and reformat to your liking.

The original reCAPTCHA, with two words: It knew the answer to one of the words and didn't know the other. At one point some users were inserting purposefully wrong answers or slurs into the unknown word to mess with the data collection.

I expect the idea is the same with images, if there are 4 buses I expect 2 it knows are correct and used as a sanity test, 1 it's pretty sure it's correct (from majority of users selecting it), and 1 has some heuristics that might be a bus but it is currently testing to see whether users believe is or not. Similarly with the 5 not a bus images.

Bundling of SaaS apps would be a great idea.

OAuth might one way to enable it. Instead of logging in via Google/Facebook/Apple you could login via "SaaSBundler", this would register you've used that product which could help allocate the distribution of funds. Might need some more work if you wanted to distribute based on time

Getting the internet archive onboard would be a good start. They have a legitimate interest in automating crawling of sites.

It could also hinder pentesters hired to test the owners website, but they already have to contend with WAFs.

Here is a copy of a letter I have sent out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36889971

Basically my arguments were it's anti-competitive, against the open web, and a risk to country's security agencies. The latter while a valid argument is to hopefully rattle politicians and government agencies.

I tried to put it in language and terms anyone could understand while building up terminology. Maybe I need to rethink the audience.

In the emails I sent I did use judicious formatting. i.e. "Prevents alternative browsers" is in bold, and "this is anti-competitive" is italic so someone scrolling through it could just read those.

How it works could be dropped or pushed to the end.

Not sure that it is in Sony's case. But creating patents for anti-user ideas, where you don't intend on using them, locks the idea away for at least a while, and could be seen as pro-user.

This is the content of a email I have sent to a number of politicians, government agencies, and consumer advocacy groups. You are welcome to use as is, reformat or modify as you see fit, or just generally complain about structure/grammar/arguments etc.

---

Dear <<REPLACE>>,

I am a <<COUNTRY>> citizen, and I live and vote in <<REPLACE>> district. Professionally I am a software engineer <<blah blah blah years of exp, exp with web etc>>. I am writing to you with a concern about a recent planned change by Google called Web Environment Integrity (WEI). I believe this change is anti-competitive, against the open web, and a risk to our country's security agencies.

Very simply WEI allows websites to verify the users browser (e.g. Chrome), and potentially the Operating System (e.g. Windows) is official and unmodified, this process is called attestation. Basically how it will work is:

1. User navigates to a website 2. The website executes a challenge to the browser (e.g. Chrome) asking for attestation and listing the acceptable attestation services. 3. The browser makes a request to a third-party attestation service (e.g. Google) 4. Software, an attestation agent, runs on the user's computer. This software scans files and memory of the user's computer or phone and sends back proof, to the attestation service (e.g. Google), the user is running an acceptable, official and unmodified browser and/or operating system. 5. Once satisfied, the attestation service issues the user's browser a token. 6. The user's browser forwards this token to the website 7. The website can use this token to check against the attestation service that the user is indeed running official or unmodified software. 8. The website then permits the user to access the site.

In the event the attestation fails or the browser fails to provide a valid token the website will likely deny access to the site.

On the face of it it may seem like this is a noble goal, unfortunately it mainly entrenches Google's position of power. Google's browser Chrome is used by 85% of users, Google search is the most popular search engine, and Google controls the biggest online advertisement service, AdWords. Once implemented Google's existing dominance places it in a position to push it onto websites and users. Google could deny access to GMail, Google Maps, and YouTube unless the user has this feature. Google could deny placement of ads, and subsequent payment to website owners unless those accessing their site have WEI enabled.

The proposal is bad for the following reasons.

1. Limited Attestation Services - Website owners have a list of attestation services they trust. It is extremely unlikely a large number of websites will add Joe Bloggs third-party attestation service as trusted. As a result it is likely only 3 attestation services will exist: Google, Microsoft and Apple. This proposal will further entrench these three companies as owners of the web. This is anti-competitive.

2. Prevents alternative browsers - Create a standards compliant browser is a monumental task which is why only a limited number exist Chrome (uses Chromium which is based off Webkit), Safari (based of Webkit), and Firefox (uses its own Gecko browser engine), most others (Brave, Microsoft Edge) use Chromium browser engine under the hood. Currently, apart from the effort, there is nothing preventing a group from creating a brand new browser engine. An extremely dedicate team could create a new browser and all websites would work with it. If WEI was implemented this new browser would need permission from the incumbents otherwise attestation would fail and users would be denied access to, potentially, most of the web. This is anti-competitive.

3. Prevents accessibility tools - Some people have additional needs due to disability or age and may use tools like screen readers or text only browsers to navigate the web. This involves additional software which injects itself into the browser in order to provide the functionality. This process, while legitimate, may result in attestation failing, especially after new software updates, and as a result denying marginalized users access to the web. This is against the open web.

4. Prevents alternative web crawlers - In order for your website to be listed in Google search an apps called Googlebot and Google crawler need to connect to your website and go through each page, this is then indexed and the results are presented based on relevant search terms. There are other web crawlers by Microsoft/Bing and Yandex which do something similar for their search engines. While they are likely to provide themselves attestation tokens in order to continue the service and new company may invent a better way of providing internet search but in order to crawl, with WEI in place, they would need to ask permission from Google to authorize their crawler. This is anti-competitive.

5. Prevents legitimate scraping - Similar to crawling there are legitimate uses for scraping, which is extracting data from a webpage by an automated tool for use as some other purpose. One example is the Internet Archive (archive.org) they regularly visit millions of websites around the world take a copy of them for historical purposes. You can use archive.org to view Google's first homepage from 1999, or Yahoo! from 1996. WEI prevents new companies or groups from creating novel tools created from legitimate scraping without asking permission from Google first. This is anti-competitive.

6. Prevents security agencies from doing their jobs - Government security agencies and police hack, monitor, and scrape, as permissible under law. These actions are performed by expert agents who are also supported by various scripts, bots, and custom built apps. These tools are rapidly modified and continuously changing depending on the operation. WEI would require these tools to be authorized by the attestation agent or service, while there are a number of ways this could occur, ultimately this requires Google to authorize each tool in order for the tool to successfully collect a valid token. Google could temporarily or permanently deny access to valid tokens, or change the algorithm for generating them to prevent security agencies from generating their own, which would deny security agencies from using their tools against operational targets. This is a risk to our country's security agencies.