Do you want regulatory overreach? Imagine forcing every small project or self-hoster to adhere to the rules set by the equivalent of the HDMI Forum, but controlled by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook.
To redirect your other question: you should ask the web developers. If they’re honest, you’ll get a dozen legitimate answers that can’t be solved without locally running code. A chat web app, for example, needs to either poll the server at a given rate, or use a WebSocket to fetch incoming messages, both of which require Javascript. Then it needs to modify the DOM to display the new messages, which again requires Javascript. If it needs access to the microphone or webcam, it has to use some kind of local interface. I could go on. The point is, a lot of this arbitrary local code exists because there’s no other way to implement many features without it. Imagine having to reload an instant messaging app if you want to see if you’ve received anything. It would be like writing a GUI application using Qt or GTK, but without using any events.
I don’t view basic consumer rights as “regulatory overreach.”
to adhere to the rules set by the equivalent of the HDMI Forum, but controlled by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook.
No and no. I never said it should be corporations setting the standard. That’s the FCC’s job, and comparable agencies in other countries. The FCC already regulates many things about the internet. Some things they don’t regulate enough. Were you one of those people who viewed Net Neutrality as “regulatory overreach” too?
Sure, the current admin is corrupt and the current FCC can’t be trusted, but that won’t be forever.
Also, there’s such thing as the IEEE. Standards for web development are not unheard of, and they’re not categorically wrong. There need to be rules governing the rules that govern web development to ensure those rules aren’t abused. But setting no rules or standards would be insane.
If they’re honest, you’ll get a dozen legitimate answers that can’t be solved without locally running code.
That’s not honesty. That’s deflection and dissembling. Sure, you can think of a dozen different reasons why scripts need to be run locally. But that doesn’t excuse using those scripts as a trojan horse for malicious data mining practices. Permissions can be atomized.
If a web developer can’t compartmentalize the part of the script that loads an image on their website from the part of the script that harvests sensitive fingerprinting data that the website has no legitimate need for, then they’re either a really bad developer who’s never heard of modularity, or they’re doing it deliberately and maliciously because they know they can get away with it and are choosing to make their website break for anyone who doesn’t let them basically peep under their device’s skirt.
I get your point, yeah.
I actually do think that scripts should’ve hugely modularized, compartmentalized, and browsers should’ve using OCaps instead of ACLs, or at least make more granular ACLs so you can finetune what can or what cannot do a given site and/or a given script.
Thank you! It seems pretty clear to me, modularity is supposed to be the modern standard for quality code, so why are we normalizing websites that use scripts with more arms than Cthulhu harvesting uniquely identifiable data from our personal devices by running arbitrary code locally? It seems insane to me…
“One tool for one job.” It’s pretty basic Unix philosophy. So why do we now have “One script for several hundred different fingerprint variables, oh and also the website’s basic functionality”?
Do you want regulatory overreach? Imagine forcing every small project or self-hoster to adhere to the rules set by the equivalent of the HDMI Forum, but controlled by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook.
To redirect your other question: you should ask the web developers. If they’re honest, you’ll get a dozen legitimate answers that can’t be solved without locally running code. A chat web app, for example, needs to either poll the server at a given rate, or use a WebSocket to fetch incoming messages, both of which require Javascript. Then it needs to modify the DOM to display the new messages, which again requires Javascript. If it needs access to the microphone or webcam, it has to use some kind of local interface. I could go on. The point is, a lot of this arbitrary local code exists because there’s no other way to implement many features without it. Imagine having to reload an instant messaging app if you want to see if you’ve received anything. It would be like writing a GUI application using Qt or GTK, but without using any events.
I don’t view basic consumer rights as “regulatory overreach.”
No and no. I never said it should be corporations setting the standard. That’s the FCC’s job, and comparable agencies in other countries. The FCC already regulates many things about the internet. Some things they don’t regulate enough. Were you one of those people who viewed Net Neutrality as “regulatory overreach” too?
Sure, the current admin is corrupt and the current FCC can’t be trusted, but that won’t be forever.
Also, there’s such thing as the IEEE. Standards for web development are not unheard of, and they’re not categorically wrong. There need to be rules governing the rules that govern web development to ensure those rules aren’t abused. But setting no rules or standards would be insane.
That’s not honesty. That’s deflection and dissembling. Sure, you can think of a dozen different reasons why scripts need to be run locally. But that doesn’t excuse using those scripts as a trojan horse for malicious data mining practices. Permissions can be atomized.
If a web developer can’t compartmentalize the part of the script that loads an image on their website from the part of the script that harvests sensitive fingerprinting data that the website has no legitimate need for, then they’re either a really bad developer who’s never heard of modularity, or they’re doing it deliberately and maliciously because they know they can get away with it and are choosing to make their website break for anyone who doesn’t let them basically peep under their device’s skirt.
I get your point, yeah. I actually do think that scripts should’ve hugely modularized, compartmentalized, and browsers should’ve using OCaps instead of ACLs, or at least make more granular ACLs so you can finetune what can or what cannot do a given site and/or a given script.
Thank you! It seems pretty clear to me, modularity is supposed to be the modern standard for quality code, so why are we normalizing websites that use scripts with more arms than Cthulhu harvesting uniquely identifiable data from our personal devices by running arbitrary code locally? It seems insane to me…
“One tool for one job.” It’s pretty basic Unix philosophy. So why do we now have “One script for several hundred different fingerprint variables, oh and also the website’s basic functionality”?
*A wild Systemd spawns*
You can’t escape!