Re: Formal objection to Encrypted Media Extensions progressing to Proposed Recommendation without greater user protection

	Hi,

O Xov, 04-08-2016 ás 11:08 -0700, David Singer escribiu:
> 
> True, having watched people argue that gorillas are (or are not)
> natural persons, nothing surprises.

I think this comment is out of place. I don't have the intention to
bikeshed here but we should refrain such comparisons with other
people's believes. You don't know who's subscribed to this list and who
you could be offending.

Now I'll make public my opinion about this thread.

I am not very vocal about these issues cause I am just an implementor
and in general other than considering that changing the spec and
forcing me (and others) to implement new things is tiring sometimes, I
don't mind if the spec goes one way or the other, but I'll try to
express my opinion here.

I am FLOSS developer, believe in it and I have already a hard time
having to implement this standard which is like the devil for people
like me. Still, I think there are other benefits of implementing this
for FLOSS users, like accessing the contents that are available for
"less concerned users", who are a majority, etc.

Sandboxing is ok but I am unsure it enabling execution of blobs is
good, not only because as Harry said, sandboxing is not perfect, but
because it can be a compatibility problem among platforms (we could be
talking about OSs, architectures, etc).

Summing up my opinion. We can discuss if the spec says or not if we
should ask for permission to run something, I still think it is wrong
for ethical and technical reasons.

Br.