Web Environment Integrity API Proposal (opens in new tab)

The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1].

I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it.

This isn't new to them. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to[2]. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name.

The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.

[0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser [1]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013

Brave is an advertising company, but we’re quite different from Google and others in this space. Brave's ad notifications are opt-in and engineered in such a way to protect and preserve user privacy. I'm not sure where you saw Brave engineers talking about ways to prevent users from blocking our ads—we don’t try to prevent users from blocking Brave Ads.

If you wish not to see Brave’s ad notifications, you can easily avoid them (by not opting-in in the first place, or by throttling/disabling-entirely). There are no special hoops to hop through, or technical incantations to utter. We believe digital advertising is better when it is built on user-first principles and consent.

If a user opts-in to Brave’s ad notifications, their device proceeds to routinely download-and-maintain a regional catalog of available inventory. The user's device then evaluates the catalog entries for relevance. User data is NOT sent off-device in Brave’s model. If a relevant ad entry is found, it is then displayed to the user in such a time and manner for minimal distraction. When an ad notification is shown, the user receives 70% of the associated ad revenue for their attention (no clicks required).

Again, if the user wishes to not see ad notifications, they can simply choose not to opt-in to viewing them. If the user wishes to not see the occasional sponsored image on the New Tab Page, they can turn those off from the New Tab Page itself with 2 clicks ( Customize › Show Sponsored Images). Importantly, the user is always in control. They decide whether ads will be displayed, and to what degree (e.g., the user can set a limit on ad notifications per hour).

Brave isn't interested in coercing users to view advertisements.

We are an open-source browser developer and these concerns deeply resonate with us. We understand the paradox Alphabet faces, yet we firmly believe the solution isn't about exerting "DRM" level control over a ubiquitous means of access.

We're committed to standing up for the future of the web. We don't just see ourselves as a browser company but as advocates for an open, fair, and free web. We invite you to join us in this endeavor. Visit https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro today. Stand with us for an open, free, and fair web.

Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good?

> The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself

I don't think this this reality. Google proposes a bunch of APIs that goes nowhere because the other browser vendors consider them harmful. Google's previous attempts at trying to drive more adtech into the browser have failed due to a lack of support from other browser vendors.

I think "who drives the web specs" is probably in the best situation possible. It's largely Google, Mozilla, and Apple who all have slightly different interests in what makes a good web platform, and the web ends up better for it.

Hopefully this will not be implemented, but still it's a good wake up call for those who still think that Chrome is more than an ads-delivery app with some browser functionality.

"powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access" are actual hard-to-implement-right functionality that is often pushed to browsers with very little discussion or considerations.

The entire premise of 'people want expensive to make websites, but don't want to pay for them' is already a bit flawed. I do pay for youtube to not see ads, I wish I could pay Google (and Meta) to not serve me ads on any site including Google search, they have ads on. That would make life a lot nicer. And I personally know no-one who would not sign up for that. But that doesn't happen, I guess because ads make more (not from me, but he)?

To begin with, pretty much every government employee in the world has some proprietary software developed within the country for security reasons. Old, even obsolete machines. Out of date software, unlicensed/unregistered software, etc, etc. Much of this is also true of banks.

This means if this is put in place as in the spec, it will affect banks and governments negatively. And as powerful as Google is, I don't think it will win over governments + banks.

But again, all the above could be nonsense, and Google will gatekeep the web. It found itself as the loser in the AI race, and it knows pursuing AI during the ongoing arguments on privacy and who owns the data AI is being trained on - the next best thing is to own the playground where the AI trains. That may not be an entirely bad thing either; sad, perhaps, but as this goes on, and browsing becomes a pain, maybe this will result in people just spending less time online? That's a good outcome in my books.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823871

Got flagged and killed. :)

kinda abusing if you ask me

It can be reconciled with love for money and total lack of moral fiber.

Aka « I don’t give a shit about my actions destroying every one, as long as I go get paid »

I can tell you that the machine is so big and the responsibilities diluted to such extent that no one really feels like they're making a morally dubious decision, it just sort of happens on its own, magically.

Even the ad example is about not charging advertisers for bot views, which is a huge problem right now.

The problem is that a tool can often be used for evil as easily as for good, and the more the standard was used to block ad blockers over simply filtering out User Agent spoofing bots, the more this tool ends up evil.

And even if the limited scope in the proposal was the true intent, there's nothing preventing scope creep.

Though reading over it all, I do think the assumption of motivations in most of the comments here are misaligned. This does seem to be primarily focused on the issue of growth in bot activity and making it harder on bots to act as if human to servers.

Still, the spirit of who controls the client is very much at stake, and the comments here are ostensibly right that this is a measure that should not happen.

(And frankly, given the bubbling attitudes about enshittification coupled with the coming lowered barrier of entry for competition against software firms and content production, I think this is very much the kind of thing that may backfire horribly if forced though.)

It's easy: he works for Google. Every single public-ish web developer and/or devrel from Google will spend inordinate amounts of time lambasting Apple, writing eaassays on how Apple cripples the web etc.

While Google has broken the web so badly that Apple would need several decades to come anywhere close.

Note: the moment they leave Google, they may slightly change their tune and criticise Google a bit. For an example, see Alex Russel of web components when he went to work at Microsoft after spending a decade making sure that web browsers are turly unimplementable: https://infrequently.org/2021/07/hobsons-browser/

> Apple’s strategy with this is obvious, and it clearly works, but it still greatly upsets me that I couldn’t just build an app with my linux laptop.

Ben, you've thought about the impact your proposal would have on Linux laptop users, right? Surely you sometimes use your laptop for banking, right?

― Upton Sinclair

It's not a "threat to" the industry... It literally _comes from_ the industry... Unless the tech industry is willing to lose one of its biggest sources of revenue, this is exactly what the industry wants...

Second is more focus on nag screens, "nudges" and other deliberately degraded UX. I.e. with the Surface tablets, you're technically able to disable secure boot, however you'll then be greeted with an ugly bright red boot screen every time you turn the device on. This stuff can have significant psychological impact, especially for "casual" users.

It's completely and utterly irrelevant that Chromium is open source, because the web is a protocol, and having the source for an implementation of the protocol doesn't matter in the least when you don't control the protocol. You can't just fork Chromium and remove a feature, because websites expect the feature, and your browser won't work on them. You can't just fork Chromium and add a feature, because websites don't care about your tiny fork and won't use your feature. You can't fork Chromium, you have to fork the entire web.

But capitalism does what it does best, and will happily take advantage of (and try to prolong) a natural monopoly situation even if the origins were genuine.

In fact this is why there are regulations around "utilities". They are also an area where a natural monopoly is the optimal, so they shouldn't be treated as a free market.

(Food for thought: Perhaps the Internet infrastructure should be a utility too? Browser makers could be forced to be non-profit, which would mean companies need to divest themselves of the "Internet business" if they want to do "business _over_ the Internet")

We could be here saying "Google was genius releasing Google Plus - that stopped Facebook etc. in their tracks and now they own social media"

> Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

I find it quite cute that they start with "users" as if it's a user demand but in the next sentence switch to "advertisers" --- the real target population.

You don't berate a kitchen for serving food, why would you look at any Google contraption from HTTP/3 to Chrome as anything but a vehicle for selling ads and/or mining data?

* The US would never kill its golden calf except as a last resort.

* The US standard for antitrust is consumer harm. Google implementing a thing that other companies have been asking for, any company can join and send their own attestation signals, and then those other companies in unrelated markets use the thing to maybe not support unapproved stacks which could reasonably include Android/Chrome won't fall on Google.

Google Cloud becomes a VC driven organization that slowly eats margin dirt against it's competitors until insolvency. There was no way for it to recover enough resources from the mothership before being split out.

Search trundles along ok, assuming it took search ads and a ton of core infra with it, but it never makes enough money to ship a decent product extension. It hopefully removes some products it can no longer afford margin on, which have long produced distorted results (albeit with good intention). It suffers slow brain drain, and users end up using multiple search engines for every search again because no one has good search quality. The monopoly breaks, but so does this part of the internet, bolstering apps and information sites ecosystems positions. Wikipedia is the only real winner we want in this space.

Display Ads goes like it just discovered faster than light travel, no longer held down by the ol ball and chain that is the entire rest of the company. They go much darker as they no longer have tons of goodwill organizing from the rest of the company, and increasingly join the bad actors. In 20 years they eventually join lexis level evil in terms of multi-directional user sharing.

YouTube heads off into the stratosphere along with Display Ads. They try to maintain a better public face, but having to spin up their own ad market solutions drops ad quality even further, margins suffer, but their position remains ossified and they slowly recover. They start to get a bit more agile, no longer disrupted every other year by some mandate from the mothership, they're better able to keep up with new markets and more rapidly crush new competition.

Workspace decays very slowly. All the AI stuff halts and gets ripped out as there's no one there to work on it. The drive product has to scramble to figure out how to rebuild without all the internal commodity infrastructure support. GMail gets unstable for a while due to the weight of the infrastructures sitting on many fewer shoulders. Global instability results of the rapid de-distribution of the system as the production infrastructure was sliced apart in a rush to meet forced division. The economy takes a big dive as a result, as half the world loses email access regularly, bills don't get paid, etc.

Photos spins out into its own thing, and dies rapidly, as selling the odd photo frame here and there just can't meet margin.

Chrome tries to get funding from Microsoft, eventually it gets purchased wholesale, but the core team gets ripped up and largely discarded. Who knows how the OSS products fare, it depends on the executives in Microsoft who win this purchase. Eventually the main product gets shuttered, with Edge being the only replacement.

The telco products all shutter immediately, with no recourse. Same with R&D.

AI tries to split out into it's own thing, but fails to find a business and suffers constant reputation problems. After 10y of trying it eventually shuts, the acquiring company however immediately spins up multiple successful products and makes a big dent in the now well established market.

Android spins out into its own organization. The first decade the heat of internal politics in new found vacuums crushes them, eventually they find footing and head back to their open core roots, get scrappy and do some new things. Along the way their size fluctuates as the market forks and fractures as it does, but Android manages to hold its position as the western center of its universe.

Chromecast, ChromeOS, Nest all suffer badly having no core ecosystem to ship anymore. They attempt to buddy up with Android which pushes them around trying to androidify everything, but resulting in poor UX and/or poor margins across the board. Eventually the all but ChromeOS shutter, and ChromeOS business also closes, but leaves behind an OSS gift that a core group of passionate individuals try to limp forward as best they can with the new Microsoft Edge overlords.

Users find their data fractures across a dozen companies, with poor SSO integrations. Security mistakes abound, lots of people are affected. Online crime goes through the roof, it feels like the 90s again, but on a much much larger scale. Lots of people lose their accounts, and are affected by service outages and the ongoing economic effects from those. ISPs jump at the chance to step in, and lots of users start trying to use alternative email services again. They experience poor discoverability, lots more security problems, and constant space pressure. Vultures make off like bandits, and amazon, apple, microsoft, and cloudflare are the biggest winners in the fallout.

i agree they should be broken up, but it might be the wrong time for it.

We need to promote alternative web engines like Servo and libweb and browsers based on them. Many of these engines need a major push to be competent enough for daily use. Gecko is also fine - but building a new browser with it is said to be hard.

[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/refs/he...

Strong cultural norms (e.g. hacker culture) might help for a while. But incentive structures eternally erode opposition.

It could make it easier for developers to band together and try to collectively veto things like this. But corporations with money can always buy the expertise of people, have them undermine the community, create their own parallel communities and influence public opinion and legislators.

FAANG salaries supercharge people's cognitive dissonance. They will find ways to excuse, minimize and ignore their contribution to the current situation.

Even HackerNews developed a sub-subculture of people that were constantly going on threads and calling remote attestation worries as "FUD".

It's unclear how to preserve cultural norms that stand in the way of market dominance. The only thing I can think of is having competing interests in the market. But whenever these align -- hell breaks loose.

In fact, their first example (!) outlines how this would be appealing to advertisers because they can attest a real human is viewing the content.

From what I understood, the "attester" is a remote server, which signs the attestation with its own key, after somehow verifying that the browser and operating system and drivers and machine is not running any code that this remote server does not completely trust. That key can be used at most to identify the remote server, which is supposedly shared by a wide number of devices.

Yes, this means that your browser depends on having a working connection to that remote server for every attestation it makes, and that if that remote server colludes with the web page (or is compromised), it can leak your identity.

I also wonder what those certain baseline requirements are going to be? Weird that they're left ambiguous.

It's probably nothing to worry about. We have a ton of precedent with Widevine that "it's okay, we'll license to anyone who meets requirements" wouldn't ever be abused[0]. It's fine, you just meet the baseline requirements that aren't spelled out yet and that might be subject to change and that certainly won't include headless or highly scriptable or experimental browsers. Nothing to worry about.

[0]: https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked...

You can't run your own attester - these are implemented by the companies who provide the hardware, such as Microsoft or Apple.

> An owner of this repository has limited the ability to comment to users that have contributed to this repository in the past.

I never thought I'd see a CoC being used as ammo against this, but it's excellent.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31835121>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33210846>

Google is heading in that direction and their velocity is accelerating.

Right, but there is a severe risk that you give the means to block non-mainstream clients, be it browsers, operating systems or devices, correct?

Yes, it's nice to know you may want to allow user agents to browse the web without WEI and I'm sure you have best intentions, but we are already in a world where banks and even stuff like Zoom just look at the user agent string and say "Ah, I don't know this browser, please install Chrome or Edge!". Why shouldn't they just similarly halt in the future if the WEI API does not exist? I (and the browser vendor) can spoof a user agent, but you can't spoof attestation, i.e. cannot fix it if websites don't allow my browser based on the (missing) WEI API. So, how will you prevent this?

How can you make sure that users of e.g. Asahi Linux will be able to use the web in the future? Who will attestate their browser based on what? How will e.g. Gentoo users use the web with their build-from-source browser and OS? Will e.g. Netflix continue to work reliably on a user agent without WEI (but with Widevine) - and will the holdback population (if holdback is implemented at all - no offense intended, but you didn't sound too confident about this on the blink-dev mailing list, tbh) be large and significant enough for them to not just say "eh, can't verify, use the app please or wait a bit"?

How, in an information theory sense, can you stop website operators from using this attestation information to block subsets of users? The "holdback" mentioned in your reference link seems like an optional thing, as if we're concerned about good faith actors rather than the opposite.

It would be nice if the spec included examples of how a hypothetical bad actor couldn't abuse the spec to block non-attestors. i.e. How do we stop "this website only works in Chrome on Windows" but for attestation? Right now, it's trivial to "fix" because we can lie about our environment (it's likely just reading our User-Agent) and it's unlikely that the website will actually not work in other OS/browser contexts.

Some websites really do only work in certain contexts, but I think critics' concern is what happens when the website would work perfectly fine, but it refuses to. I think this is largely the same concerns people have with mobile app permissions, but those can be gatekeeped by mobile app stores who can enforce political goals such as "You can't ask for permissions you don't need and refuse to work when you don't get them", websites have no such constraints.

What's to stop websites from blocking random users now? Nothing, really. But we don't have to bypass any cryptographic attestations in order to try to work around those blocks. This spec seeks to stop that.

I suspect you didn’t just forget. It would look good to at least explain why you’re not following through on this, as it’s now Thursday in parts of the world.

What prevents a website from using invasive fingerprinting _AND_ WEI together? I strongly suspect websites will end up using both WEI and invasive fingerprinting because:

1. Websites will want to use invasive fingerprinting on old browsers and it would work within browsers that deliberately don't implement WEI.

2. Websites will want to get as much invasive fingerprinting information as they can get their hands on.

3. It is another layer of fingerprinting in the likely event that WEI is ineffective due to TPM exploits[1], operating system/driver exploits, web browser exploits, determined actors using rooms of computer display recording devices and robotic arm mouse movers, etc. Invasive fingerprinting further increases the cost and complexity to actors the website is trying to block.

> This is not DRM - WEI does not lock down content

It is absolutely 100% DRM. Your proposal states that devices would need to attest their configuration to the website. The website can then block the user because it doesn't want to show the news article to a Linux device where the user can block annoying pop-up ad videos, copy and paste the text or save the web page. The website can instead only allow devices which are factory-configured to block copy+paste, block saving web pages, block screenshots, etc. It's still DRM even with the proposed holdback mechanism because in the best case, a user will still be blocked 9/10 times (or whatever the holdback mechanism is set to). The more likely scenario is a website owner will just refuse to serve content until the client has attested itself. "The requested page can not be provided due to an unexpected problem. Try again in a few minutes."

There are so many flaws with the scheme as currently proposed I feel I could write for days:

Will websites be expected to block and ban users of AMD-SP now that it is broken[1]? Or will whoever conducts ad fraud just buy all the AMD-SP devices they can get their hands on?

As another author replied, are Gentoo users that compile their web browsers and operating systems from scratch just ignored, and the proposal pretends it won't impact these users?

How does the proposal allow users with specialist accessibility software to browse the web without being blocked for being a minority group that is not economically worth website owner's time to support? What prevents abuse of said specialist accessibility software for other purposes?

How would a new start-up developing a competing browser or phone from scratch, and are very much unknown and in a minority position, be able to convince millions of website owners to unblock/allow their new browser or phone? Cloudflare's Friendly Bots program refuses to respond to open source projects, so why would Cloudflare as an implementer of WEI care about new start-ups or small open source software projects?

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14717

Step 2: "Secure" browsers change the behavior of their implementation of the Content Blocker API so an industry-accepted "secure" site lile Google Ads can opt-out of being blocked ("You wouldn't want a misconfigured content blocker to accidentally break a verified secure site right?")

Step 3: ??? (Force the users into a take it or leave it choice for whether they want to be part of the internet or not)

Step 4: Profit

But there's basically no real actual meat to this specification. It's abstract: it doesn't really say what Web Environment Integrity is, it's up to the browser to determine, and the rules could keep getting more and more and more specific at the browsers leisure.

If we shoot this down and every bank requires me to download a mobile app, then fine. What this is proposing is basically to turn websites into mobile apps: device controlled, unmodifiable, broken on any non-approved hardware. If that's going to be the case regardless, I'd rather just download the app, at least that would be more honest about what's actually going on, and at least I'd still be able to use my adblocker when I browse the web.

Strikes me as very dangerous though on the web where there are so many paths for malware to get in and this could get in the way of plugging the holes.

Sure you can fake the results of an attestation in your fork, but your fork would be using your own key to sign the response, a key that the site can reject.

the TPM does the attestation of the entire running environment, starting with firmware, through the OS, through the browser all the way down to the website