SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for boru
Dear Jeff, Tim, and colleagues, In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing "Encrypted Media Extensions," an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem. By doing so, the organization offered the use of its patent pool, its staff support, and its moral authority to the idea that browsers can and should be designed to cede control over key aspects from users to remote parties.
[...] The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew — and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise — the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. In essence, a core of EME proponents was able to impose its will on the Consortium, over the wishes of a sizeable group of objectors — and every person who uses the web. The Director decided to personally override every single objection raised by the members, articulating several benefits that EME offered over the DRM that HTML5 had made impossible.
[...] We believe they will regret that choice. Today, the W3C bequeaths an legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. They give media companies the power to sue or intimidate away those who might re-purpose video for people with disabilities. They side against the archivists who are scrambling to preserve the public record of our era. The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they'll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
[...] Effective today, EFF is resigning from the W3C.
Thank you,
Cory Doctorow
Advisory Committee Representative to the W3C for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:44AM (8 children)
I'm not really joking. The EFF should publish an alternative standard excluding just this, at least at first. Make a lot of noise about it (they clearly know how to put out press releases) and work every trick in the book to get anything which uses the so-called official W3C methods for DRM to be labeled as unsafe, like Google does for pages with suspected malware.
Because that's what it is. Digital Restrictions Malware.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:13AM (5 children)
So, who do they fork? Chrome? Firefox? I'm guessing IE isn't an option.
Who works on it? I'm guessing a web browser is a honkin big chunk of code that nobody understands > 70%. The learning curve is steep, those missing guardrails on the hairpin curves lead to security issues. How many newbs are gonna join your Grand Tour? How many of them can stay on the road at 3 am in rainy conditions when making a false move means a huge security issue?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:32AM
The AC said fork the standard, not a browser. It's an interesting idea. Whether the EFF would have the clout and connections to make a go of it is the question.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:48AM (3 children)
Fork the standard, not the browser.
A browser fork to refuse EME already exists though -- Pale Moon. Although it definitely seems like they could use some additional support, so it might be nice for EFF to throw some their way as well. Although honestly I'd probably prefer they start with a more modern Firefox version if they're going to get into that...maybe even just a patch/plugin to strip out EME if possible, shouldn't be too hard to find one guy to maintain *that*.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linkdude64 on Tuesday September 19 2017, @04:12AM (2 children)
"A browser fork to refuse EME already exists though -- Pale Moon"
Funny that you mention Pale Moon specifically - didn't the lead dev recently stand against ad-blocking software or tracker-spoofing extensions or some such?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @07:52AM
No, he added a flag to one extension generating fraudulent clicks, so that it requires changing one setting to install it, so that hopefully only people who know what they are doing will install it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 19 2017, @10:19PM
Yeah, something like that, I've got no real opinions there though. Don't mistake my comment above for actual support of that project...I've got nothing much against it if that's your thing, but Firefox is the only browser I'll run on any of my devices. But if someone wants a browser that's taking a moral stand and refusing to ever accept EME, it does seem like Pale Moon is their best bet for that. Personally I'll stick with running Firefox and keeping it disabled, but if they start to screw with the ability to do that then maybe I'll look at Pale Moon. But I really hope I never need to, because Pale Moon's UI kinda sucks... ;)
Browser-based ad blocking is a stupid idea anyway though, so that would never keep me from switching. Do it right and block at the router or a required proxy server. If I don't want my browser loading content from malware-server.org, why the hell would I trust a game or other application using that same domain? Browser plugins are for reconnaissance -- learning what might be missing from the firewall rules and why.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday September 19 2017, @04:30AM
The RIAA lobbied Congress to pass the DMCA. They did. Unanimously. Every one of em' voted for it.
We also need to lobby Congress to pass the Digital Millenium Responsibility Act, to go along with DMCA, to stop abuse and irresponsibility of the rights given in the DMCA to operate in secret.
Just as the DMCA holds people responsible for copyright infringement, even to the case of $180,000 per instance, those terms should also apply to malware distributed under the cloak of DRM. As a concession to mandating ignorance on the public for how their stuff works, the vendors of stuff assume full responsibility for screwups sent under the Congress-granted right to cloak. No different than some manufacturer who did not watch his food prep stuff and sent out loads of salmonella laced chicken.
Get malwared? Send the rightsholder on record the bill. If he makes fuss over it, get that blond haired bombshell working for Relion Group to yap endlessly on TV about class action suits.
Failure to pass the DMRA should also negate the DMCA.
We gotta do business the way business does business.
However, this will require us to vote in a Congress which represents the People.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @10:13PM
The EFF will publish an alternate standard, but first they have to get their special friend Chelsea Manning to sign off on it.