This CL moves the base::Feature from content_features.h to
a generated feature from runtime_enabled_features.json5.
This means that the base::Feature can be default-enabled
while the web API is co...
The problems start to happen when buisnesses adopt this en masse. Expect all banks to implement this for example. You can use Firefox all you want, but then you won’t be able to do online banking.
Standards are really fucking important to help people stay functional in a society. This is one area that the ANCAP mindset just gets it totally wrong, unless you like the idea of being a hermit.
Anyway, we are already seeing some websites basically reject browsers like Firefox because they basically give the consumer too much protection and freedom. Arguably we’ve seen this before, but this may be a new tier of corporate lockout of open standards as consumer protection gets thrown in the trash. Thanks America.
Assuming it works like Netflix (where Firefox asks permission to run DRM on the local machine) it would likely be as simple as visiting the bank’s login page to find out if they utilise this.
If it’s mandated by law then I’m SOL… likely would just do my banking over the phone at that point
One nice thing about the USA is that there are many banks and they are not the same.
Chase says, “Windows, macOS, or GTFO.”
My local credit union says, “We recommend Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Edge. Other browsers may work, but we’re not going to make promises about their security. We DGAF which OS you use; that’s your browser vendor’s problem, not ours.”
But this could change in the future, if some misguided politician decides to “do something” about all the bank accounts getting hacked…
The issue isn’t that we have no alternative, it’s that this feature will basically eliminate those alternatives sadly. You can read more about it here if you haven’t, but it’s bad.
For sure, I agree and it’s bad. But frankly unsurprising. This is the trajectory of the internet: greater control.
We’ve become too dependent on centralized tech companies and erred in allowing tech companies to change, define, and control the internet in the first place.
When websites start blocking clients that don’t implement the wei handshake, you’ll be forced to use one that does if you want to visit those sites. Firefox will either adopt it or become a second rate browser.
I wish that this kind of thing would generate enough outrage to increase Firefox’ market share considerably (from the <3% it is today), and in that way deter websites from adopting it since they would block a larger share of users. Unfortunately, I think that might be too naive of me…
Most banking apps don’t work on rooted Android phones. It’s not the same, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that at least these companies would force their customers to use specific software…
And I use my root to hide my root from my banking app… Idk about the implementation details of this, but I kinda think the same could happen here as well.
This is the problem for me. If my bank or other critical institution decides to refuse me access with Firefox, I can’t use Firefox. This is the crux of the issue. Google is creating a browser monopoly with it’s market dominance and attestation scheme.
MS tried to exert control in the early 2000’s with its IE dominance and was thwarted by an anti-trust lawsuit. Google will probably skate on this one. Nowadays the consumer is only a resource to be plundered. The customer is shit.
hey everyone a friendly reminder that alternatives exist, and just drop this shit fast and move to better alternatives. In this case firefox.
The problems start to happen when buisnesses adopt this en masse. Expect all banks to implement this for example. You can use Firefox all you want, but then you won’t be able to do online banking.
Standards are really fucking important to help people stay functional in a society. This is one area that the ANCAP mindset just gets it totally wrong, unless you like the idea of being a hermit.
Anyway, we are already seeing some websites basically reject browsers like Firefox because they basically give the consumer too much protection and freedom. Arguably we’ve seen this before, but this may be a new tier of corporate lockout of open standards as consumer protection gets thrown in the trash. Thanks America.
If my bank does this I’ll take my custom to a smaller one that doesn’t.
I don’t think they will though, since they gave me a hardware thingy to login to my online banking from my rooted android 🫠
How will you know which bank doesn’t? What if it’s mandated by law or some financial industry standard?
Assuming it works like Netflix (where Firefox asks permission to run DRM on the local machine) it would likely be as simple as visiting the bank’s login page to find out if they utilise this.
If it’s mandated by law then I’m SOL… likely would just do my banking over the phone at that point
One nice thing about the USA is that there are many banks and they are not the same.
Chase says, “Windows, macOS, or GTFO.”
My local credit union says, “We recommend Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Edge. Other browsers may work, but we’re not going to make promises about their security. We DGAF which OS you use; that’s your browser vendor’s problem, not ours.”
But this could change in the future, if some misguided politician decides to “do something” about all the bank accounts getting hacked…
The issue isn’t that we have no alternative, it’s that this feature will basically eliminate those alternatives sadly. You can read more about it here if you haven’t, but it’s bad.
For sure, I agree and it’s bad. But frankly unsurprising. This is the trajectory of the internet: greater control.
We’ve become too dependent on centralized tech companies and erred in allowing tech companies to change, define, and control the internet in the first place.
Alternatives must be promoted in mass scale.
When websites start blocking clients that don’t implement the wei handshake, you’ll be forced to use one that does if you want to visit those sites. Firefox will either adopt it or become a second rate browser.
For now, Mozilla’s official stance is to oppose this proposal: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/852#issuecomment-1648820747
I wish that this kind of thing would generate enough outrage to increase Firefox’ market share considerably (from the <3% it is today), and in that way deter websites from adopting it since they would block a larger share of users. Unfortunately, I think that might be too naive of me…
You require Chrome or a Chromium based browser to view this comment.
FTFY. Vivaldi and the rest won’t be approved, either.
Websites should be able to block me. I can just go elsewhere.
May be a bit problematic with banks, insurances and maybe government institutions…
it will truly be messed up if essential websites block user access because of this
Most banking apps don’t work on rooted Android phones. It’s not the same, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that at least these companies would force their customers to use specific software…
And I use my root to hide my root from my banking app… Idk about the implementation details of this, but I kinda think the same could happen here as well.
This is the problem for me. If my bank or other critical institution decides to refuse me access with Firefox, I can’t use Firefox. This is the crux of the issue. Google is creating a browser monopoly with it’s market dominance and attestation scheme.
MS tried to exert control in the early 2000’s with its IE dominance and was thwarted by an anti-trust lawsuit. Google will probably skate on this one. Nowadays the consumer is only a resource to be plundered. The customer is shit.