• stravanasu@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand why so many opinion pieces and news keep on saying that Web Environment Integrity could be abused and that’s why we should oppose it. This misses the point a great deal.

    Implementation of Web Environment Integrity in browsers IS ITSELF AN ABUSE, because I have the right to go around the web without continually proving who I am, even less against a 3rd party.

    It’s as if someone said that some officer (and not even a government one) should always be by your side when you go out, ready to certify who you are, whenever you speak with people on the street – and even with friends. Would you accept that?

    Are we totally out of our minds??

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can only assume these opinion pieces are written by people who use Google for everything they do and trust them.

      Dumb fucks, to quote Zuckerberg…

      • Joph@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        That works until you are forced to interact with a website that only works with it, either by work or school.

          • sunflower_scribe@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            There was a lawsuit regarding this just recently, where a student successfully sued over a room scan for an exam. It’s absolutely ridiculous and shouldn’t be tolerated by any student.

        • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s already the case with most corporate managed BYO device policies. The typical scenario is that an employer gives you the choice:

          1. Use the company-owned and company-managed device. No root/admin access, no privileges to install unauthorized software, sometimes policies against personal accounts or files or use.
          2. Bring your own device, but consent to the company’s IT department managing your security and potentially monitoring your use. If you’re going to connect this device to the company’s LAN (through wifi or VPN or otherwise), you’re going to let us lock it down.

          It’s a legitimate concern that these types of things would normalize corporate-managed devices in our personal lives as consumers, and worth resisting in that space, but I don’t think it would actually change the status quo in the corporate world to go from proprietary device management lockdowns to some kind of public standard for lockdowns.

          • randomwords@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Which is exactly why I will never do 2. Provide a device if you want control. I will not give you the ability to wipe my personal phone remotely just to check my work email on it.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      How would WEI work? What signals does my computer send to convince the other computers that my computer is doing what they want? Is it based on some “trusted computer” hardware level bullshit that’s already there? (I just want my computer to do what I want.)

      • Baut [she/her] auf.@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Without having read anything about WEI at all: Microsoft already supports something similar by using Windows Hello (Edge). It’s using your TPM to make sure the hardware/OS wasn’t tampered with. On Android, this is comparable to safetynet/Play Integrity.