The W3C claims to be what it is obviously NOT
https://www.networkworld.com/article...pt-secret.html
https://www.neowin.net/news/w3c-appr...rchers-worried
Expect to see Google, Microsoft and Apple attach proprietary DRM decryption to their browsers, and the major streaming services adopt them, to the exclusion of open source browsers. With it will come the Big Brother tracking and all that goes with it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...and-membership
With these corporations it is all about money and power. Expect them to restart their plans to dip into every Internet user's pocket demanding micropayments for even, I suspect, normal web browsing. And with government pressure I see nothing to stop the government(s) from demanding that spyware be included in the EME's, so even when you are using Tor or a P2P network Big Brother is right there, watching your every move and monitoring your every post.
Let’s compare that to another statement the W3C made to me regarding their “openness”:
In this way, the W3C is the exact opposite of open. A closed cabal (with a high price tag for participation) decides, in secret, what the future of the “free and open Web” will be. Every human being on the planet should be concerned about this.
“Even if we treat the web like a public commons, the W3C is a member org — it's clearly easy to forget that as we are unprecedentedly open.” — W3C on Twitter
“Unprecedentedly open.” That’s how the W3C describes themselves. And yet they not only don’t disclose critical data around their decision-making process for new standards, but they censure members that even hint at the internal votes. In this way, the W3C is the exact opposite of open. A closed cabal (with a high price tag for participation) decides, in secret, what the future of the “free and open Web” will be. Every human being on the planet should be concerned about this.
However, many people are concerned that the new standard gives too much power to streaming services and browser makers, while at the same time restrains researchers and users of those services. One point of contention is that EME offers no protection for security researchers that hunt for bugs or vulnerabilities. In many countries, the act of bypassing DRM is considered a crime even if it is done for legal purposes like security research. The new EME standard does not protect such researchers from possible prosecution. Another issue is that under EME, there is no standardized way to decrypt a protected video stream, which may lead to browser makers having to license a vendor's specific decryption module, causing implementation issues for open-source browsers and possibly hurting new ones that wish to enter the market.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...and-membership
The W3C is a body that ostensibly operates on consensus. Nevertheless, as the coalition in support of a DRM compromise grew and grew — and the large corporate members continued to reject any meaningful compromise — the W3C leadership persisted in treating EME as topic that could be decided by one side of the debate. In essence, a core of EME proponents was able to impose its will on the Consortium, over the wishes of a sizeable group of objectors — and every person who uses the web. The Director decided to personally override every single objection raised by the members,
...
We believe they will regret that choice. Today, the W3C bequeaths a legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. They give media companies the power to sue or intimidate away those who might re-purpose video for people with disabilities. They side against the archivists who are scrambling to preserve the public record of our era. The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
...
We believe they will regret that choice. Today, the W3C bequeaths a legally unauditable attack-surface to browsers used by billions of people. They give media companies the power to sue or intimidate away those who might re-purpose video for people with disabilities. They side against the archivists who are scrambling to preserve the public record of our era. The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
Comment