W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > January 2016

RE: Proposal to add a browsing context named "_private"

From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:08:45 +0000
To: Utkarsh Upadhyay <musically.ut@gmail.com>, Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org>
CC: "timeless@gmail.com" <timeless@gmail.com>, Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>, "WebAppSec WG" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN3PR0301MB122058745DB06B3AE76C697EBDCA0@BN3PR0301MB1220.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I know! How about letting the user specify that a bookmark should be opened in-private? … oh, right :P

I think this whole area causes more problems than it solves. I can clearly see the problems, much less clear on potential solutions, and really vague on the problem it is trying to solve.

From: Utkarsh Upadhyay [mailto:musically.ut@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org>
Cc: timeless@gmail.com; Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com>; Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>; WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal to add a browsing context named "_private"

@Joel, @Crispin: Thanks for the comments; I do see your point of views. I've responded to some of your comments inline:

> Why effectively ban that for users who want [NSFW links in browsing history]?
> The web site has no business telling the browser whether or not to preserve this browsing history. [...] I would be REALLY offended if a web site turned off my history for me.
However, the use cases I had in mind were a bit more nuanced. I do see websites offering different "modes" through user-preferences (site specific, not browser specific): the default one keeps opening pages via target="_blank" or target="_new" and the alternate mode sets target="_private".
So this feature will, just like almost all other features, need buy in by vendor sites.

On a side note: I am not sure how the other browsing contexts (i.e. "_blank" or "_new") came to be: perhaps they exist only for legacy reasons. I'm afraid I haven't done my homework there. >_<

> Gay sites don’t need to be in-private at all if you are George Michael, but they really need to be in-private if you are Larry Craig.
This sounds like user preferences which George Michael and Larry Craig may want to set on the sites they browse. Currently, they _cannot_ do that. Not without third-party plugins anyway.

>   Shopping for jewelry: not normally salacious, but one might want to do it in-private if shopping for a spouse’s surprise gift, and especially if one is shopping for a secret mistress’s gift.
Indeed. So these websites will almost never willingly set target="_private" on their links. The browsers will still continue to let the user switch to incognito mode if they want to.

> That sounds more like a feature request for making it easier to get into private browsing mode. I think Chrome already does that by adding the "open in incognito" right-click menu item.
I agree: this is a sort of a feature request which reduces UI/UX friction rather than do something which cannot be done at all otherwise. They way I see it: if the website **knows** that the user wants to open a link in incognito mode and wants to give the browser this "hint", then the browser should be able to make use of it. That was the purpose of my extension as well: making it easier than Right-click + mouse movement + click to open something in incognito mode. On a mobile device, personally, the effort required is even more (long tap + open incognito + tab switch). I'd be happy if the browser switches "Open in incognito mode" and "Open link" in the context menu when target="_private" is set. Perhaps there is an easier way of doing this (i.e. passing hints from the website to the browser)?

@Patrick:

> I was more thinking about maliciousness between browsing contexts. [...]

Interesting suggestion. Perhaps standardizing the Incognito behavior will help in mitigating such attacks?


~
ut



On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org<mailto:jww@chromium.org>> wrote:
They make sense, but I don't find them terribly convincing ;-) I've inlined some responses below.
--Joel

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM Utkarsh Upadhyay <musically.ut@gmail.com<mailto:musically.ut@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and the lively discussion!

 > In any case, I'd like to better understand the use case of when a site knows that a link should be opened "privately" and it shouldn't be the users choice before we go too far down this path.

I haven't thought about it exhaustively but have accumulated a few use cases from the experience of developing an extension to help users with switching to incognito mode.

First use case was of websites knowing *risky clicks* and providing a _safe_ way to make sure that the user doesn't have to clean up after himself, i.e. NSFW links on their content. Reddit was an example I provided in my original mail but other news sites will probably also find use for it.
It seems like the "right" thing to do is to mark the links as NSFW and let the user decide if they want them in their browsing history. Heck, some people might *want* that in their history for many reasons. Why effectively ban that for users who want it?

Second use case was being able to give users clearer instructions. An example of such a case I recently ran across was here: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6160500?hl=en


Relevant part of the page:

> Sign in to your Google Account on android.com/devicemanager<http://www.android.com/devicemanager>. If you're helping a friend with their lost device, we recommend opening an incognito tab in Chrome<https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95464> and having them sign in to the Google Account they use on their mobile device.

Such instructions can be simplified by linking to the website with target="_private". Other links which may accidentally reveal personal information (think direct links to bank account balance page) can also be made save by setting target="_private".
The key word in that is "recommend". Again, there may be valid reasons for a user to *not* go into private browsing.


Thirdly, and what prompted me to think of this proposal, was that opening an incognito window through an extension on Chrome is rather convoluted (uses background scripts) and fragile. It may not continue to work, for example, when https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/manifest/externally_connectable is enforced. In any case, the extension requires permissions to access _all_ data across _all_ websites, which already should be raising eyebrows. I'd rather have this provided by the site + the browser, both of which I trust more than a third party plugin.
That sounds more like a feature request for making it easier to get into private browsing mode. I think Chrome already does that by adding the "open in incognito" right-click menu item.

Do these make sense?

----

> This feature would require formalizing these modes, and that seems tricky at best, since the user agents are not necessarily providing the same guarantees.

If several browsers are providing independent implementations of features which _sound_ similar, isn't this is a good time to standardize it, even if it takes a bit of effort?


~
ut


Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 00:09:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:17 UTC