As an onlooker it still appears to me that your primary complaint is around Brave using an Android-provided attestation API for part of their optional ad rev-share feature, and this weak foundation is used to mark them as a terrible / dishonest etc org.
Doesn't seem good faith.
Conversation
It's not an Android API. The relevant Android API is key attestation. They use SafetyNet attestation, which is a Google Play Services API. Google Play Services isn't part of the official definition of Android. CTS / CDD don't include it. My issue with it is not it being weak.
1
You're misrepresenting my statements and continuing the concern trolling you started with in your initial tweets. I never stated or implied that my issue with it is having a weak DRM implementation. When people act as he did and to a lesser extent yourself, it's not productive.
1
If you want to have a productive conversation and hear my in-depth thoughts on it, don't start a conversation that way, and definitely don't do what he did and just fill the thread up with nonsense, baseless accusations and ridiculous spin spammed without substance at all.
1
I am interested, but also very wary of double-standards in debate when dominant bad actors seem to escape scrutiny in these ad / privacy discussions.
So the issue (in part) is this API: developer.android.com/training/safet and that it relies on Google Play Services unnecessarily?
1
As I said, my issue with Brave is not the sub-par implementation of DRM that's unnecessarily dependent on Play Services and explicitly tries to enforce that the feature cannot be used on an alternate OS. That isn't my issue with the project. It just suggested they do better.
1
I don't agree with doing this in the first place. I suggested they take a better, less easily bypassed approach if they are going to do it because I was trying to be helpful since I have experience with it. The reason I have an issue with it is not it being unnecessarily weak.
1
Okay logically I think I have to give up.
You think their ICO was illegal, they're a sketchy company, and that attestation is bad, but you wanted to help them build stronger attestation approach?
Being on someone's case for logical contradictions doesn't = concern troll!
1
1
Once again, I never said that attestation is bad. You keep misrepresenting what I wrote. I'm stated at least 4 times in response to you that I do not think attestation is bad. You're going far out of your way to misrepresent my statements. How is this anything but trolling?
2
When I write, esp on Twitter, I rely on the common sense and charity of readers: pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/def
The above is clearly about THEIR attestation being bad. Trying to distort my tweet into some wilful misrepresentation of your positions is very poor indeed.
1
It's a very willful misrepresentation of my positions after repeatedly clarifying that attestation is not bad but rather using it for DRM is bad. I'm not distorting tweets. It's what you have been repeatedly and clearly saying that is the problem. Now you're going to gaslight me?
Not a fan of this debating tactic: you attempt to find an uncharitable reading of what I was saying thanks to Twitter compression, inexact wording when essence was clear:
twitter.com/justsee/status
Bad company! Poor implementation! *But I tried to help them with a better one.*
Quote Tweet
Replying to @DanielMicay @BrendanEich and @bcrypt
Okay logically I think I have to give up.
You think their ICO was illegal, they're a sketchy company, and that attestation is bad, but you wanted to help them build stronger attestation approach?
Being on someone's case for logical contradictions doesn't = concern troll!
2
My poor wording perhaps. Replace 'attestation' with 'their implementation of attestation to use for your definition of DRM then. The main point of what I was trying to communicate here still stands.
Calling me a gaslighting concern troll out of this is again very poor.
2
Show replies