The Right to Lie and Google’s “Web Environment Integrity”

Re:The Right to Lie and Google’s “Web Environment Integrity” by wudangmonk on Sunday July 30, 2023 @06:12PM (#36936534)

The problems it aims to solve seems like an issue for google or those that care if their ad is viewed by a human or not. Can someone give a counter argument of how this might benefit the users themselves?.

Chrome on android is completely unusable due to no adblocker, is this what WEI will do everywhere?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Right to Lie and Google’s “Web Environment Integrity” by fruitreunion1 on Monday July 31, 2023 @09:21AM (#36942093)

>Can someone give a counter argument of how this might benefit the users themselves?

Remote attestation might reduce the amount of cheaters in games and fraud in banks if implemented properly. So, through potential indirect means.

I don't think any of this is worth the loss of user freedom and functionality, though. So I will vehemently oppose WEI and similar to be used outside of internal facilities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Right to Lie and Google’s “Web Environment Integrity” by therein on Monday July 31, 2023 @02:35PM (#36946903)

Anti-cheats are already remote attestation in theory for online games and they are unable to protect the process perfectly. They are unable to detect alterations to the process memory and be correct in their attestation at all times.

And cheating isn't a significant problem in in-browser games, it's not like anyone modified the browser source to create cheats for in-browser games. And for competitive online games, we have a great imperfect attempt at showing what remote attestation would look like. Anti cheat in games.

We have AAA titles that work flawlessly under Proton but you can't play them on Linux because anti-cheat needs to do DKOM on your Windows kernel before it lets you play.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

[ Parent | on HN ]