Google wants to kill the URL

Google Chrome was 10 years old yesterday, and Google has major plans to know where to take the browser from here – including options that could change the way we live the Internet at its most basic level – the # 39; URL. In recent years, Google has been thinking about how to turn the Uniform Resource Locator System into something more effective for the modern Web.

In a conversation with Wired, Adrienne Porter Felt, head of engineering at Chrome, noted the many disadvantages of URLs:

People have trouble understanding URLs … They are hard to read, it's hard to know which part is supposed to be reliable and, in general, I do not think URLs work as a way to convey the identity of the site . So we want to move to a place where web identity is understandable to everyone – they know who they are talking to when they use a website and they may wonder if they can trust them. But that will mean big changes in the way and when Chrome will display the URLs. We want to challenge the way URLs should be displayed and question it, because we find the right way to convey the identity.

There is no doubt that this point is right. The simple obfuscation of links – making sure that the text of a hyperlink seems to point to a destination while the actual URL is something totally different – is an easy way to launch attacks against users, including users who are generally unresponsive. If we are passionate about honesty, we will admit that even those of us who know absolutely better have accidentally clicked on a link we should have made was not legitimate. Whatever your level of security, you have made a mistake during your life. The idea of ​​reforming the URL and creating something new and, hopefully, safer is a good idea, but it is also an idea that Google has already advocated. In 2014, the company made changes to Chrome that turned URLs into Google's "bullet points", with the bar / search bar being entirely dedicated to search.

From Google's "original chip" experience in 2014.

Google did not comment exactly on the comments it received from this experience in 2014, but no matter what led to it getting away from the original chips. This particular feature has never been removed from beta versions of Chrome. And while I acknowledge that Google's concerns about the security and legitimacy of URLs are accurate, it seems dishonest for the company to help turn URLs into simple aggregated lists filled with other data. wants to fix. There was a time when I did not need to install browser extensions just to copy a Google Chrome URL without there's a ton of bullshit I did not have need, as an end user, and without extracting any value. .

This fact alone should raise eyebrows when Google declares want to improve the Internet for the good of all, by banishing these annoying URLs. If you know how to read them, the URLs will tell you a lot about how data is transmitted to publishers about your online activities. There is absolutely nothing, in fact, there is an ocean of other data transmitted under the hood, but it is always useful to be able to see and analyze this information when needed.

Google's favorite URLs in 2014 fundamentally hide much of this information. This is the ultimate method of hiding data: users can not see the amount of information they have extracted from their lives and learn more about what they click if they can not literally see that the URL contains such data. And while ten years ago such concerns might seem trivial, we now know that each of these data points represents a mosaic that has been woven around us all. There is literally no unimportant data. Ironically, we can thank Google for teaching this lesson. If, after all, this information was not important or did not matter, why would we want to be aware of it first?

URLs are null They are heavy. They are confusing. It's hard to communicate with people if you do not have a pen and paper handy, and it's hard to find good URLs that come to your mind the first time you hear them. The proliferation of domain extensions allows great flexibility, but also opens the door to copy sites, squatters, phishers and all kinds of other sites. Google is not wrong on these points. I do not think anyone particularly appreciates having to share the types of links that turn into four pages of seemingly random code when they are pasted into an instant messenger box.

But it would be a cold day in hell before trusting Google, all businesses, to develop a replacement plan. I have no doubt that Google would try to solve many of the real security issues that affect the concept of URLs. That's all they're supposed to put in there that I do not want to accept. Companies that have helped break the existing system should not be responsible for the repair.

Now read: Google Specter Fix increases Google Chrome's usage by 10%, Google performs default failover with HTTPS by default, and Chrome adblocker is enabled