this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2347 points (99.2% liked)

Privacy

32113 readers
461 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And since you won't be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is... interesting to say the least.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mylemmy@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Geez this would suck but as with other drm I’m sure the de-drm plug-in would follow

[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm afraid that browsers supporting this DRM would also block attempts to break it and that browsers that do not support it get blocked by websites using it

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven't thought this through, but if you had a headless browser acting as a proxy, couldn't that pass the un-drm HTML & other resources to your actual browser?

I guess the drm stuff would be embedded in the js so it would have to block all js, so this wouldn't work for the majority of the modern web.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

I think the point is to reduce ad blocker usage among the average person. Techier people will figure out a workaround, and of course the people making botnets will too.

So they’re destroying the open web to squeeze a few extra pennies out of a subset of ad block users.

[–] AAA@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Yes and no. Yes because the process would work in theory. No because the attestor (supposedly the OS?) wouldn't attest your "headless proxy browser" as legitimate client.

Using a proxy would move the battlefield to how to trick the attestor. But realistically the whole thing will go down this route anyway. It's another arms race. At the very end they'll require cryptographic chips soldered into your device which make sure you're not sideloading any software before running the OS, which would allow you to trick the legitimate attestor of the OS.