zlacker

>>reacto+(OP)
> Attesters will be required to offer their service under the same conditions to any browser who wishes to use it and meets certain baseline requirements. This leads to any browser running on the given OS platform having the same access to the technology, but we still have the risks that 1) some websites might exclude some operating systems, and 2) if the platform identity of the application that requested the attestation is included, some websites might exclude some browsers.

I feel this is the bit that's going to be hand waved away for the sake of convenience.

>>polite+rY
> and meets certain baseline requirements

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...