[donnachangstein]

[flagged]

[kulahan]

I agree fully with him. I don’t care what part of your job gets harder, or what software breaks if you can’t make it work without unnecessarily invading my privacy. You could tell me it’s going to shut down the internet for 6 months and I still wouldn’t care.

You’ll have to come up with a really strong defense for why this shouldn’t happen in order to convince most users.

[Aeolun]

It just means I run a persistent client on your device that is permanently connected to the mothership, instead of only when you have your browser open.

[zaptheimpaler]

I'm sure it will require some work, but this is the price of security. The idea that any website I visit can start pinging/exploiting some random unsecured testing web server I have running on localhost:8080 is a massive security risk.

[duskwuff]

Or probing your local network for vulnerable HTTP servers, like insecure routers or web cameras. localhost is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Wobbles42]

I do understand this sentiment, but isn't the tension here that security improvements by their very nature are designed to break things? Specifically the things we might consider "bad", but really that definition gets a bit squishy at the edges.

[protocolture]

This attitude kept IE6 in production well after its natural life should have concluded.

[aaomidi]

I’m sorry but this proposal is absolutely monumentally important.

The fact that I have to rely on random extensions to accomplish this is unacceptable.