Re: Response from Director to formal objection "Turn off EME by default and activate only with express permission from user"

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:21 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:10 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 12, 2017, at 10:50 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, please actually stay on topic.
> > >
> > > There is *obviously* a profit motive in DRM. Otherwise, it would not
> exist. There is also an obvious collusion
> >
> > Google, please define collusion:
> >
> > col·lu·sion
> > kəˈlo͞oZHən/
> > noun
> >         • secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in
> order to cheat or deceive others.
> >
> > Wild accusations of this kind are unacceptable. This conversation is at
> an end.
> >
> >
> > I think that again you are going off topic to avoid the topic at hand.
>
> You made an accusation against members of *illegal activity*, which you
> have neither withdrawn nor apologized for. In fact, below, you dig in
> deeper. Perhaps you could stay on *that* topic long enough to withdraw the
> accusation and apologize? Otherwise, as I say, this conversation is at an
> end.
>


I said, contra Mark's agrument that browser vendors are neutral, that there
is collusion between the browser and other parts of a company and so
browsers are not neutral. I see no reason to apologize for such an obvious
statement, and I would appreciate it if you used a measured and reasonable
tone.


Of course, I did not excuse you or anyone else of illegal activity. Whether
or not it is illegal is not to be decided by myself, up to be decided by
investigations and lawyers, such as that likely to commenced by the
European Commission. I'm not an expert, but I would argue it is likely not
illegal as it's not secret. Part of the attraction of W3C is that it can be
used to show that the deliberations are not secret, and thus not part of an
anti-trust investigation.

My point is fair, simple, and clear: Browsers vendor are *not* neutral in
terms of user security and privacy. DRM/EME is a great example of how
browser vendors are not neutral. Thus intervention by W3C staff, the
Director, or other groups is a useful and sometimes necessary corrective to
short-term profit interests in a standards body.

If you want to argue that browsers are always operating in the user's best
interest, I think Marks example of the failed 'Do Not Track' effort shows
that is not the case. Nonetheless, we have good examples at W3C, such as
user permissions for WebRTC.


> >
> > I did not imply secret, although it should be mentioned as true that for
> some browser vendors there is are multiple parts of the company that owns
> different components of the platform, where one is a browser and the other
> is a media-streaming service. That's not a wild conspiracy theory, it's the
> reality of how these company works and is self-evident even to end
> consumers. That's why browser vendors are not neutral in this case, and
> other cases as well.
> >
> > I do think the collusion in this case can be considered unfair, or
> possibly cheating users out of rights. You may not agree with me, but I
> think the European Commission will have something to say on possible
> anti-trust issues within three months, as is legally binding.
> >
> > https://juliareda.eu/2017/04/open-letter-to-the-european-
> commission-on-encrypted-media-extensions/
> >
> > Earlier, the European Commission has considered bundling of OS, browser,
> and other services as in violation of anti-trust rules. Adding DRM puts
> European copyright twist on it, given European exceptions and limitations
> to copyright are not harmonized.
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-
> europe-antitrust.htm
> >
> >   cheers,
> >       harry
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>