Conversation

I don't think calling it DRM is a mislabel. It would say exactly the same thing about a video game using this feature to enforce that people don't block in-game advertisements or bypass the need to pay micropayments for features or virtual currency.

Quote Tweet

Replying to @DanielMicay @justsee and @bcrypt

You picked a fight. "DRM" abuse, then "enforced viewing". Ad fraud is real and the $320B/year growing to $1T system uses JS nonsense against it, fruitlessly except for the CYA shakedown artists who sell tag-level antifraud. G & FB use what you mislabel "DRM". We aim to as well.

3

2

5

Replying to

Now you're conflating the tool with uses. DRM means TEE with secret-key protocol where the content owner controls content, key, TEE code, vs the user. Debasing this to mean antifraud tech provided by app stores is an aid to fraud, as well as bad for rational discourse (debasing).

1

1

Replying to

You're claiming that I said something that I didn't. I never said that attestation was DRM, or that SafetyNet attestation in particular was DRM. Using it for this purpose is what I am referring to as DRM i.e. enforcing restrictions on what the user can do with the app or content.

1

Replying to

and

I also never said that DRM was inherently evil. A video game using attestation to implement anti-cheat is DRM. It prevents a user from doing something like using a modified client with color blind support. I don't think it's evil to do that, but I definitely do think it's DRM.

2

Replying to

You are still double-tweet-replying to each of my tweets. Stop. You abused "DRM". Period, full stop. You also seem to be excusing fraud. What else are we to use than the tech Google and FB use on their native stacks to get low fraud rates, vs. the JS tag-soup programmatic hell?

1

Replying to

Seriously? I can't spread out my response over 2 tweets? If you want to reply with 2 tweets you can do the same. If the character limit was still 140 characters, yours would be split across multiple tweets too. It's how I use the platform. A thought per tweet in multiple tweets.

2

Replying to

and

You cannot take this approach to debate and then get mad at me for needing to respond in multiple tweets: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gall You keep repeating the claim I'm misrepresenting DRM or falsely calling it DRM but I think the majority of people would agree with my definition.

2

Replying to

and

I'm hardly the only person referring to these kinds of anti-fraud / anti-cheat mechanisms as DRM. It's standard practice to refer to anti-cheat / anti-modding as DRM: pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Digital_r I'm not the one being misleading and dishonest. That's you folks. Consistently now.

1

Replying to

No, you flunk EFF's DRM definition (eff.org/issues/drm). We do not prevent you from using your purchased+owned hardware and software as you see fit. We simply don't share ad revenue with you if safetynet says "nope!" Without further explication you arrantly excuse ad fraud.

1

Replying to

That's one form of DRM. It's not the entire picture. Software trying to enforce restrictions on usage and trying to prevent it from being bypassed is what myself and many others refer to as DRM and it includes anti-fraud and anti-cheat mechanisms. To me, that's what it means.

12:22 AM · Jul 26, 2019Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

You're trying to police how myself and many others commonly use the language and the way that I've always chosen to use Twitter of sending multiple tweets, each with a separate thought just like writing a commit message. It's how I use it and will continue to use it indefinitely.

1

Replying to

No, Twitter polices by banning selectively. They're the cops. You and I are fellow citizens. I'm just replying to you. Mute me if you must; I'm sorely tempted to mute you. You have not corrected or retracted any of your errors ("enforced viewing", "the site with different ads").

1

Show replies

Replying to

We restrict giving you crypto-tokens if you flunk OS-level antifraud. That is not DRM. Right?

1

Replying to

Attestation support is not specifically an anti-fraud feature. It's a generic attestation feature. It's not specifically for use cases like this. The primarily purpose for the hardware-based attestation support is actually to verify that keys are hardware backed in a basic way.

2

Show replies