Slashdot Mirror
Chrome Is Nearly Ready To Talk To Your Bluetooth Devices (engadget.com)
Jon Fingas, writing for Engadget: Don't look now, but your web browser is about to become aware of the devices around you. After months of testing, Google has switched on broader experimental support in Chrome and Chrome OS for Web Bluetooth, which lets websites interact with your nearby Bluetooth gear. You could use a web interface to control your smart home devices, for instance, or send data directly from your heart rate monitor to a fitness coach. At the moment, trying Web Bluetooth requires the stars to align in just the right way. You'll need a pre-release version of Chrome 53, and you'll naturally want to find (or create) a website that uses the tech in the first place.
Please stop this.
yes.
I won't accept a browser that should be SAFE, touching things it should not.
another example of the google children not thinking deeply about what they are doing. simply just doing because they CAN rather than because they SHOULD.
if google is behind it, chances are its invasive and not in your best interest, more often than not.
sigh......
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
All aboard the nope-train to nopeville!
Apparently no one at google ever saw Jurrasic Park, or they would know that scene with the line "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
The internet is a cesspool of fetid, rotting miasma, and you want it to be able to control real world things with no managed server in between? Are they really that thoughtless? Apparently they are!
I won't accept a browser that should be SAFE, touching things it should not.
Yet I infer that you'll accept a native application, which presumably has even greater privileges to access the data in your user account, over a web application running inside a web browser's sandbox. How are native applications more secure than web applications?
I can choose NOT to run a closed-source app.
how do I know that my browser is not doing bad things behind my back? I have a browser open all the time, as do most. that, alone, makes this idea super stupid.
if I choose to run a BT app, I'll run one that I trust. and I'll end it when I'm done.
I have zero need for linking in vmlinux to a FUCKING BROWSER and making the fucking thing bootable. given time, the children at google will want to do that, too.
oh, and systemd needs to be mixed into this somehow. I feel it will be more complete if they do that (lol).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Native apps don't usually mix in code from untrusted sources at run time they way basically every web app that includes ads of any kind does.
Native apps don't usually have comments and data from other untrusted users that would by trying attacks like XSS against me. Native apps won't be vulnerable to CSRF and similar either.
The web browser is a little to open a platform for giving access to hardware like that.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I have bad news for you. All major browsers have been offering web sites access to any attached webcams and microphones for many years now. Of course they ask you if you want to allow access first, and you can set an "always disabled" flag, but the code is in there.
I find it quite amusing what Google has done. They build an OS on top of every other OS in the form of a browser, making the underlying system pretty much irrelevant. All apps run in the browser now - Google's office apps, their cloud file storage, video conferencing and soon health monitoring via Bluetooth sensors.
I still don't want it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC