TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Client-side content encryption

69 点作者 abraham大约 5 年前

17 条评论

p4bl0大约 5 年前
From the title I thought it would be something along the lines of an NaCl implementation in JavaScript.<p>It&#x27;s actually a software that helps breaking the web for its users. Basically it allows paywalled websites to send users their inaccessible data even of they won&#x27;t be able to read it. The title should be &quot;DRM for web page that eat up your data plan even if you can&#x27;t access the content&quot;.
评论 #23005515 未加载
评论 #23005454 未加载
WhyNotHugo大约 5 年前
Wow, this is just terrible. Sites using this will now be indexed by google, but not by any other search engine, since it&#x27;s encrypted with a key only google [and subscribers] can read.<p>I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers.
评论 #23005174 未加载
评论 #23004662 未加载
评论 #23005241 未加载
franga2000大约 5 年前
Wasn&#x27;t Google&#x27;s excuse for AMP that it&#x27;s a &quot;standard&quot; and everyone could use it (other search engines for example)? Now they want to add even more Google-specific crap to further lock it down. Not exactly surprising...
评论 #23008259 未加载
diggan大约 5 年前
&gt; All content is easily indexed by Google and ready to serve from its AMP cache<p>If the content is encrypted and can only be decrypted by the user with the right keys, how does Google get to decrypt it? They have a master-key everyone needs to use in order for this to work?<p>Took a look at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;amp.dev&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;guides-and-tutorials&#x2F;develop&#x2F;monetization&#x2F;content_encryption" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;amp.dev&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;guides-and-tutorials&#x2F;develop&#x2F;m...</a> which is linked as well, but got no answer.<p>I seem to remember something around that Google penalized websites who showed different content between Googlebot (the indexer) and a normal website visitor. Does this move go directly against that, when the premium content would be indexed but not be able to be viewed by the visitor?
评论 #23004389 未加载
kohtatsu大约 5 年前
Woo DRM for websites! Thanks Google!
评论 #23004170 未加载
评论 #23004916 未加载
andy_ppp大约 5 年前
The bastards on the AMP strategy really do want to embrace and extend the web; watch out next for a currency that competes with Libra and is even less free. You can pay per click on the web with Google getting 30%+ and for advertising they will be the only game in town.
评论 #23007232 未加载
freakynit大约 5 年前
One more attempt by Google to gather more control over content publication and consumption. Idea nonetheless in nothing new.<p>The only thing that makes this practical is Google&#x27;s existing know-how of billions of it&#x27;s users, and offloading of content encryption on server-side using Google&#x27;s services
asplake大约 5 年前
Not so much user-friendly as normalising the user-hostile
kreetx大约 5 年前
It appear that sending encrypted content is a bet on whether the user pays for the content or not. I&#x27;d wager that for most page loads people won&#x27;t go on to pay. So if page-loads become larger on average due to the encrypted content then the real benefit here is that the original content providers will be hit less (since amp can fetch the content all at once), but perhaps more importantly, google can index this content.<p>edit: So in total, users&#x27; bandwidth won&#x27;t be saved - google is just serving itself, but packaging it as a user benefit.
atrilumen大约 5 年前
The web is Google&#x27;s platform now, and they&#x27;re locking it down.<p>It&#x27;s time for a new web, and a new user agent with a minimal core so it isn&#x27;t impossible to implement.
评论 #23007234 未加载
noizejoy大约 5 年前
I find it quite hostile to send user inaccessible content down the pipe, thereby cluttering up bandwith and local storage.
评论 #23005257 未加载
评论 #23004240 未加载
thereyougo大约 5 年前
The article talks too much about the problem, and when it comes to solving it, it gives very shallow information.
评论 #23004302 未加载
评论 #23004301 未加载
ecmascript大约 5 年前
Fuck AMP and fuck Google.
ArtRichards大约 5 年前
While not appreciating the use of encryption to paywall services, ultimately its the responsibility of the content provider. If the author of an article contributes their content to a publisher who uses this method of encryption, thats up to the content creator; and then I would hope sites like this would just stop linking to them.<p>In reality, this is a major paradigm shift, as it provides a way forward for peer 2 peer hosted content. Imagine that instead of sending the key and providing access, rather your access is based on some other out of band validation system, such that another peer controls your access to their content.<p>Very exciting, but of course this particular perversion of google with AMP is more abuse of technology, solving a problem of publishers at the expense of freedom of information.
prophesi大约 5 年前
This would actually be pretty cool if it was made into an open protocol. Let there be a well-known ID for encrypted paywall content, with children divs that specify which search engine&#x27;s public key it was encrypted with. Search engine bots would then be able to decrypt the content with their private key.<p>The downside is that now you&#x27;re sending duplicated content to clients. Turning it into an event that javascript could fire off would solve this; a bot accesses the site and hooks up to the encrypted-content event. The event returns a list of search engines. If the bot&#x27;s search engine is in the list, it hits a well-known URL with its name, and gets back the encrypted content it can decrypt with its private key.<p>Just spitballing a few ideas here.
edf13大约 5 年前
Avoid &amp; protest!<p>Google wants it&#x27;s own version of the Internet.... a paywalled modern AOL.
endgame大约 5 年前
Buzz off, Google. Stop making the web worse.