zlacker

>>danShu+(OP)
Viewing the web as a platform for delivering applications, Web Integrity is an obviously good thing that I personally would use as a developer who makes software people pay for.

The opposition listed here is mostly misguided. For example, there is ~0% chance Google breaks "screen readers" or "assistive technologies" with Web Integrity. Saying that they would break seems like a bad faith argument to me.

Fundamentally this is about DRM and whether or not you think it should be allowed. I believe optional DRM for web applications would be good for developers and users of the apps. It would be bad for most other entities (crawlers, scrapers, criminals, etc). So I am in favor of it.

>>mgracz+E22
Yeah, the benefits here are pretty cool to think about. The ability to say "you can't access this sensitive web resource until you attest that your system is up to date and an antivirus has run in the last week" is huge. The problem is that sites could also say "and you don't have an adblocker installed".

One option would potentially be to only allow positive assertions - ie: "You are up to date" not "you are not running this". TBH I think that would address a major concern for me.