zlacker

>>pabs3+(OP)
It's a fine idea. But what I'm taking away from this post is the link to the Google/Chromium web DRM prototype and summary ... yikes. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environ...

>- The web page executing in a user's web browser

>- A third party that can “attest” to the device a web browser is executing on, referred to as the attester

>- The web developers server which can remotely verify attestation responses and act on this information.

Chome only for now but I imagine after it's pushed to Chromium and all the browser based on that Mozilla will implement it too (just like all the other DRM FF has now).

>>superk+ji
Yeah... I don't think the original post is the best. This blog post doesn't add much context. Maybe the URL should just be updated to the github document the blog post links? [0]

[0] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

>>Jeremy+ve1
On the contrary. The URL you post here has been submitted to HN several times (plus my attempt to make the title a little catchier as I linked to the GitHub issue #28, which I titled “Don’t add website DRM to Chrome” in a defensible attempt to expand the title the best I credibly could under HN rules - the issue title is just “Don’t.”)

These all died in obscurity. This blog post by contrast had a catchy title that HN actually engaged with, and as such is measurably superior.

Blame dang & co, for making forum software in which blogspam is the only way to add comment or meaningfully add context and editorialize. (Since blogspam is officially discouraged I’d say the software is not fit for purpose.)