Is the end of the Web as we know it coming? Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, director of the W3C web standards, and Knight Commander, Order of the British Empire, has given his blessing to anti-piracy locks on web content.
Traditionally, WEB technology is open. 
HTML markup, CSS, and JavaScript can be viewed, although they are not easily understood, due to minification (we also use it at SecNews), they are mixed and reused. The open nature of the web has also allowed its enormous growth.
The difficulties
But those who market expensive content, software, and media companies, instead of open source, prefer open wallets to anything that exists.
They have therefore adopted copy prevention systems based on proprietary technologies such as Adobe Flash and Wildvine that allow high-value content to circulate but without being easily copied through web browsers.
However, this approach is quite desirable from a user experience and ongoing compatibility perspective.
The Encrypted Media Extensions API – supported by companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Netflix – is opposed by the free software community, academic researchers, and enemies of anti-piracy mechanisms. The Encrypted Media Extensions API provides a standards-based mechanism for displaying DRM-protected content in compatible web browsers.
The W3C does not force anyone to use DRM. Rather, the EME API is what provides support for content providers who choose to implement DRM through proprietary content decryption modules (CDMs).
Speaking on behalf of Berners-Lee in a note posted to the W3C mailing list, Philippe Le Hégaret said:
"After considering the issues, the director has reached the decision that the EME specification should be moved to W3C recommendations.".
EMEs were first proposed in 2012, and continue to cause controversy among those who believe that web technology should do away with DRM altogether.
“Today we mourn the Web, as the W3C sold us all out,” lamented John Sullivan, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, in a statementon Friday.
In February, author and activist Cory Doctorow, writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called EMEs “unjustified.”
That same month, Berners-Lee declared his support for the technology, arguing that it is better to have a seat at the table for it than to ignore the concerns of software and content companies and force them to implement their own DRM schemes.
“If the W3C didn’t propose EME, then browser vendors would do it outside of the W3C,” he said… “It’s better for users to do DRM through EME than through other means.”
This is a view that the enemies of EMEs do not accept. There are those who see DRM as anathema, because no obvious hack could make studio executives open the code for security, since they are only focused on the “incoming” of investments.
In a more pragmatic position, the Electronic Frontier Foundation last year proposed a way to mitigate the risk of EMEs not being developed by computer security researchers due to legal threats based on DMCA circumvention provisions. The cyber rights advocacy group asked the W3C to support a DRM policy, similar to the W3C's existing patent non-aggression policy, as a means of preventing the reluctance of EMEs to be used for security.
The W3C, which was unable to reach an agreement on how to address vulnerability disclosure, responded with little more than that, offering only voluntary guidelines instead of demanding legislation.
Web: Time pressure
The EMEs will eventually be published as a W3C proposal unless at least 5% of the 475 members of the W3C advisory board (the board consists of companies, non-profits, and educational organizations) file an objection within 14 days.
If an objection is filed, committee members will have to vote on whether to accept or reject the technology.
WEB Under the rug
Of course, in 2017 it would be utopian to believe that the functioning of the WEB is determined by committees and not by large technology companies or hidden government orders. Closed code on the WEB means not only covert surveillance, but also a crazy dance of billions, and as you understand, there are many who claim them.
Companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google are eager to offer a better user experience, and of course they won't do so with altruistic intentions.
Governments and secret services have for years aimed to control all information, and the WEB is a place of circulation but also an arena for the dominance of the strongest.
Of course, it is worth mentioning the surprise statement by Sir Berners-Lee, but also the turn of the Web standards agency, W3C, which he chairs.
Perhaps this fact makes many think that the future internet will not be able to exist without the adoption and direct use of closed source code….
But is that so? And if so, why are there so many opposing voices from organizations ensuring the free flow of information and many other activists?
Why should there be someone who decides where and when we can be safe?
Personally, I hope that the voices of profit-seeking people will not be heard, and that the romantics who believe in the open nature of the internet will prevail. I hope that there are still some who cannot be bought off by companies waiting around the corner to provide us with a “better user experience.”
