Slashdot Mirror
Google Wants To Kill the URL (wired.com)
As Chrome looks ahead to its next 10 years, the team is mulling its most controversial initiative yet: fundamentally rethinking URLs across the web. From a report: Uniform Resource Locators are the familiar web addresses you use everyday. They are listed in the web's DNS address book and direct browsers to the right Internet Protocol addresses that identify and differentiate web servers. In short, you navigate to WIRED.com to read WIRED so you don't have to manage complicated routing protocols and strings of numbers. But over time, URLs have gotten more and more difficult to read and understand. The resulting opacity has been a boon for cyber criminals who build malicious sites to exploit the confusion. They impersonate legitimate institutions, launch phishing schemes, hawk malicious downloads, and run phony web services -- all because it's difficult for web users to keep track of who they're dealing with. Now, the Chrome team says it's time for a massive change.
"People have a really hard time understanding URLs," says Adrienne Porter Felt, Chrome's engineering Manager. "They're hard to read, it's hard to know which part of them is supposed to be trusted, and in general I don't think URLs are working as a good way to convey site identity. So we want to move toward a place where web identity is understandable by everyone -- they know who they're talking to when they're using a website and they can reason about whether they can trust them. But this will mean big changes in how and when Chrome displays URLs. We want to challenge how URLs should be displayed and question it as we're figuring out the right way to convey identity."
If you're having a tough time thinking of what could possibly be used in place of URLs, you're not alone. Academics have considered options over the years, but the problem doesn't have an easy answer. Porter Felt and her colleague Justin Schuh, Chrome's principal engineer, say that even the Chrome team itself is still divided on the best solution to propose. And the group won't offer any examples at this point of the types of schemes they are considering. The focus right now, they say, is on identifying all the ways people use URLs to try to find an alternative that will enhance security and identity integrity on the web while also adding convenience for everyday tasks like sharing links on mobile devices.
"People have a really hard time understanding URLs," says Adrienne Porter Felt, Chrome's engineering Manager. "They're hard to read, it's hard to know which part of them is supposed to be trusted, and in general I don't think URLs are working as a good way to convey site identity. So we want to move toward a place where web identity is understandable by everyone -- they know who they're talking to when they're using a website and they can reason about whether they can trust them. But this will mean big changes in how and when Chrome displays URLs. We want to challenge how URLs should be displayed and question it as we're figuring out the right way to convey identity."
If you're having a tough time thinking of what could possibly be used in place of URLs, you're not alone. Academics have considered options over the years, but the problem doesn't have an easy answer. Porter Felt and her colleague Justin Schuh, Chrome's principal engineer, say that even the Chrome team itself is still divided on the best solution to propose. And the group won't offer any examples at this point of the types of schemes they are considering. The focus right now, they say, is on identifying all the ways people use URLs to try to find an alternative that will enhance security and identity integrity on the web while also adding convenience for everyday tasks like sharing links on mobile devices.
It is not acceptable for Google that some browsing bypasses Google search engine when people directly type in URLs.
Google, just doing its part in ripping the last bits of the 'web' to shreds. I guess they really do want their search engine to be the place from which all information originates.
It's about time we revert back to the future with the AOL keywords we all have been sorely missing from our lives!!!
Paul Lenhart writes words!
PRO-TIP: There's this magical thing called a bookmark that stores all those 'so-over-complicated' URL thingies under a name that you can even change yourself so your teeny little human brain can understand it! Ain't that amazing?</extreme_sarcasm>
Seriously, Google, what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Or is it that people have become so fucking dumb that they really can't type in {website}.{top_level_domain}? Considering all the stupid shit I see in the news pretty much every single day anymore I'd be very tempted to believe that, too.
I can guess what Googles solution will be: if you want to host web content you need to purchase a virtual website on their cloud and then they will issue you a code that people can use to type or scan into Chrome. After all, think of the terrorists and/or the children.
Didn't AOL try this back in the 90s with the 'AOL Keyword'? IIRC, it failed miserably.
That used to be the first step in an internet protocol change. Does Google well and truly own the internet now?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
So just like always, some powerful agent seeking to invade the privacy of individuals more comprehensively uses "security" as an excuse. Meanwhile, methods that could make the existing system far more secure (while preserving anonymity for those who need it) are ignored.
If I remember correctly, Google just got caught investigating ways to help China's Big Brother regime weaponize its search engine by turning it into a government-friendly propaganda tool. Google needs to be told in no uncertain terms to shove this so far up its corporate arse the whole board gets a sore throat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"Uniform Resource Locators are the familiar web addresses you use everyday."
So far, so good.
"They are listed in the web's DNS address book"
Uh, NO. That's DNS, and that works with the part before slashes etc, right up to and including the TLD (.com, .edu, .info for example).
"and direct browsers to the right Internet Protocol addresses that identify and differentiate web servers"
Um, partly, that's DNS. Then the URL includes the info that web server needs to find and deliver whatever you were looking for.
Who writes this crap anyways? Can't we get this right now and then?
Other than that, I think the idea is not merely dangerous, it's unnecessary. Websites could solve this with simpler URLs, like their own individual versions of .bit/ly-type shortening. Let's encourage them and the software they depend on to make their visions publishable, instead of fixing what isn't broken, merely inconvenient...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The recent expansion of Top Level Domains make it even more difficult. google.corn (that's GOOGLE.CORN in lower case) looks a lot like google.com in certain fonts.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Seriously. Don't fix things that are not broken.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
*throws chair*
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Not only does Google want more stuff to go through them they are complicit if not one of the prime agitators of this phenomenon.
For example to get directions to go from the White House to the US Capitol you get this URL (used the quotes so can see the whole URL w/o having to scroll over): "https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+White+House,+1600+Pennsylvania+Ave+NW,+Washington,+DC+20500/US+Congress+-+Sergeant+at+Arms,+1+S+Capitol+St+SW,+Washington,+DC+20515/@38.8950631,-77.0311265,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7b7bcdecbb1df:0x715969d86d0b76bf!2m2!1d-77.0365298!2d38.8976763!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7b7b057914a6b:0x617d58ed260bc5e2!2m2!1d-77.0090646!2d38.8899056"
All of the characters after the +20515 is completely unneeded for the above link to work. "https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+White+House,+1600+Pennsylvania+Ave+NW,+Washington,+DC+20500/US+Congress+-+Sergeant+at+Arms,+1+S+Capitol+St+SW,+Washington,+DC+20515" is all that is needed for the link to work, and can even whittle that down more by another 49 characters to "https://www.google.com/maps/dir/1600+Pennsylvania+Ave+NW,+Washington,+DC+20500/1+S+Capitol+St+SW,+Washington,+DC+20515" and it would still work. Perhaps they should start leading by example and fix what they helped create instead of worrying about what to replace it with.
Google does not want to "kill" URLs.
The Wired story quotes plans to attempt changing how URLs are displayed:
But this will mean big changes in how and when Chrome displays URLs. We want to challenge how URLs should be displayed and question it as we’re figuring out the right way to convey identity.
They cite previous experience when they attempted an "origin chip," later removed. Again, this was only an attempt to render things in a simpler manner. At no point in the story does any Google representative propose replacing URLs; all that language comes from the Wired writer. Maybe one could illegitimately surmise that some constraint on URLs might be implied in all this but there is no conceivable way to reach "KILL!" That's just fake.
This is Wired clickbait parroted by Slashdot.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Didn't Dilbert suggest this back in 1998.
There's too long, but then there's also indecipherable.
URL shortening services are actually another problem for phishing, since it obfuscates the link by design.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.