Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

»Q«
In <news:[hidden email]>,
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/06/2019 05:34, Sailfish wrote:
> >
> > Objection noted, downgraded to apprentice troll in training :-D
> >  
>
> > You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused
> > yourself in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a
> > field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, you still
> > would not have a clue.  

You're confused about who wrote what or about how to use your
newsreader or both.

> This level of stupidity is rarely seen.  

You think most people have killfiled you so don't see it?

> Just kill yourself

Almost anything goes here, but I can probably get you banned if you
keep going with that kind of talk.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Mozilla - General mailing list
On 6/23/2019 3:56 PM, »Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 23/06/2019 05:34, Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>> Objection noted, downgraded to apprentice troll in training :-D
>>>  
>>
>>> You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused
>>> yourself in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a
>>> field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, you still
>>> would not have a clue.
>
> You're confused about who wrote what or about how to use your
> newsreader or both.
>
>> This level of stupidity is rarely seen.
>
> You think most people have killfiled you so don't see it?
>
>> Just kill yourself
>
> Almost anything goes here, but I can probably get you banned if you
> keep going with that kind of talk.

Just killfiled the twit, but I'm behind you getting this cretin banned
for good.  No redeeming social value at all from him.

--
Cheers,

Revvie Quar
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

😉 Good Guy 😉
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 23/06/2019 21:56, »Q« wrote:
> Almost anything goes here, but I can probably get you banned if you
> keep going with that kind of talk.
>

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in London, you couldn't pick up a plate without dropping it. You are
a canker, an open wound. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with
you. You took your last holiday in the Islets of Langerhans.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a
revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species
as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very
thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid
you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a
fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolour yawn. And did I
mention that you smell?



--
With over 999 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

😉 Good Guy 😉
In reply to this post by Mozilla - General mailing list
On 23/06/2019 22:04, Revvie Quar wrote:
>
> Just killfiled the twit, but I'm behind you getting this cretin banned
> for good.  No redeeming social value at all from him.

You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe
player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world that
rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg, either,
but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist as being
below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you at birth and
then died of shame in recognition of what they had done to an unsuspecting
world. They were a bit late.


Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to
impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will
still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it ever so
much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be
crawling with caribou.


These people <https://www.rcn.com>  are ashamed of an idiot like you as
their customer.


--
With over 999 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by s|b-2
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:05:16 +0200, in mozilla.general, s|b wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:23:57 -0500, Hartdonor wrote:
>
>> Yup. And they're talking about cookies, not scripts. Cookies? What is
>> this? 1992? Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use *any*
>> browser.
>
>What about 3rd party cookies?

Truth be told, I have Firefox block all third party cookies and it hasn't
broken a thing.

I was surprised to find that Chrome doesn't have a similar setting.

But I run Ghostery too. That sometimes breaks things. So far, Chrome
hasn't given Ghostery the heave-ho. Yet.

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by 😉 Good Guy 😉
My bloviated meandering follows what 😉 Good Guy 😉 graced us with on
6/23/2019 1:05 PM:

>
> On 23/06/2019 05:34, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>> Objection noted, downgraded to apprentice troll in training :-D
>>
>
>> You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself in
>> clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues
>> at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a clue.
> (c) Daniel Cool
>
> This level of stupidity is rarely seen.   Just kill yourself, you
> retarded fucking moron.

You neglected to include the soliloquy tags, so who's the moron?

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

»Q«
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Hartdonor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:05:16 +0200, in mozilla.general, s|b wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:23:57 -0500, Hartdonor wrote:
> >  
> >> Yup. And they're talking about cookies, not scripts. Cookies? What
> >> is this? 1992? Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use
> >> *any* browser.  
> >
> >What about 3rd party cookies?  
>
> Truth be told, I have Firefox block all third party cookies and it
> hasn't broken a thing.

Same here.  I also have been using the built-in tracking protection
using the 'strict' list (now called 'level 2') for quite a while with
no breakage.

> I was surprised to find that Chrome doesn't have a similar setting.
>
> But I run Ghostery too. That sometimes breaks things. So far, Chrome
> hasn't given Ghostery the heave-ho. Yet.

I went back and forth between Ghostery and Privacy Badger for a while,
sometimes using both, and eventually settled on just Badger.  Badger
also breaks things sometimes.

If you haven't already, you might want to give Smart Referer a go.  It
prevents Firefox sending referer headers when you navigate across
domains.  <https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/smart-referer/>

Poking around AMO, I just found that Firefox has another privacy
feature called 'first party isolation', off by default and behind a
hidden pref.  An extension provides a button for toggling it.  I
haven't played with it yet, but it looks interesting.  Also looks like
it will break some things, which is why it's hidden for now.

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/FirstPartyIsolation>

<https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/first-party-isolation/>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

»Q«
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Sailfish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> REF:
> https://www.siliconvalley.com/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-to-switch/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Our latest privacy experiment found Chrome ushered more than 11,000
> tracker cookies into our browser — in a single week. Here’s why
> Firefox is better.
> \" /]
>
> Fairly damning of Google.

Here's another browser privacy article:
<https://www.wired.com/story/privacy-browsers-duckduckgo-ghostery-brave/>

Amazing that it doesn't mention the browser you should *not* use if you
care about privacy, as if the 800-lb go(ogle)rilla in the room is
invisible.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
6/22/2019 9:09 AM:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
> 6/22/2019 8:41 AM:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
>> 6/22/2019 2:47 AM:
>>> Sailfish wrote on 22/06/2019 11:21 AM:
>>>> REF:
>>>> https://www.siliconvalley.com/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-to-switch/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> Our latest privacy experiment found Chrome ushered more than 11,000
>>>> tracker cookies into our browser — in a single week. Here’s why
>>>> Firefox is better.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> Fairly damning of Google.
>>>>
>>> Well Google have got to know what you're looking at ... so they know
>>> what ads to feed you!!
>>>
>>> I doubt Google would be worried about this story.
>>>
>> Perhaps but right now they are in the cross hairs of a couple of US
>> government agencies for their privacy invasions so any article like
>> this  can't be wholly ignored.
>>
> REF:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-switch/ 
>
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Our latest privacy experiment found Chrome ushered more than 11,000
> tracker cookies into our browser — in a single week. Here’s why Firefox
> is better.
> \" /]
> 2nd hit piece piece in two days, this time from Bezos' news company.
> Seems like the long knives are out for Google.
>
REF:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-enemies-gear-up-to-make-antitrust-case-11561368601

[excerpt quote=\"
News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal, and other publishers say
Google and other tech platforms siphon ad revenue away from content
creators.
\" /]

This where I'd like to see the government focus on breaking up both
Google and Apple's monopoly's. Forcing content providers to use their
30%-cut stores and only theirs inhibits competition that would more
obviously lower the 30% rate which, in turn, would allow content
providers to lower their prices.

It's no different than when IBM was forced to stop canceling their
machine warranties if companies bought their punch cards from companies
other than IBM. I also believe it hampered Mozilla, and others, from
becoming competitive on the smartphone sector by inhibiting them from
offering their own playstore and rendering engine on those platforms and
instead forced them to invest untold millions of dollars in the failed
attempt to create a viable smartphone.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by »Q«
My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 6/24/2019
7:05 AM:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Sailfish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> REF:
>> https://www.siliconvalley.com/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-to-switch/
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Our latest privacy experiment found Chrome ushered more than 11,000
>> tracker cookies into our browser — in a single week. Here’s why
>> Firefox is better.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Fairly damning of Google.
>
> Here's another browser privacy article:
> <https://www.wired.com/story/privacy-browsers-duckduckgo-ghostery-brave/>
>
> Amazing that it doesn't mention the browser you should *not* use if you
> care about privacy, as if the 800-lb go(ogle)rilla in the room is
> invisible.
>
heh, guilt by omission. If Wired thinks by writing it that way Alphabet
will be assuaged, I've got a bridge to sell them :-)

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by »Q«
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:07:38 -0500, in mozilla.general, »Q« wrote:

>Poking around AMO, I just found that Firefox has another privacy
>feature called 'first party isolation', off by default and behind a
>hidden pref.  An extension provides a button for toggling it.  I
>haven't played with it yet, but it looks interesting.  Also looks like
>it will break some things, which is why it's hidden for now.
>
><https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/FirstPartyIsolation>
>
><https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/first-party-isolation/>

Yeah. You used to have to set that one in about:config. I gave it a try.
For me, it breaks Ghostery. I've notified their support team. I haven't
tried using it in a while to see if Ghostery support fixed that.

I also use "Facebook Container," which, AFAIK, essentially isolates
Facebook from being able to see the rest of your cookies. Obviously, only
of use if you log into Facebook.

Of course, the sanest security policy is to log out of a service when
you're done with it, but the average user doesn't do that any more.
Especially Google services. Google makes that very inconvenient.

If you don't want to be fingerprinted, being continuously logged into a
service kinda gives away the store.

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by PietB-2
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:16:01 +0200, in mozilla.general, PietB wrote:

>Hartdonor wrote:
>> And they're talking about cookies, not scripts. Cookies? What is
>> this? 1992?
>
>Nope: the everyday reality of 2019 and many years to go.
>

You missed the point. The point is they're calling Google Chrome
"surveillance software" because it accepts cookies. That's just a hit
job. All browsers accept cookies. Firefox used to accept third-party by
default, and it wasn't "surveillance software" when it did.

Neither is Chrome. At least not for that reason. The encouragement of
persistent log-in to Google is a problem, but you can turn *that* off.

>> Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use *any* browser.
>
>Sure. Use pen & paper, and a Stanley steam car to go shopping,
>including buying cookies.
>

Exactly my point. If a user doesn't know how to deal with cookies, they
should probably stop using the Internet. Otherwise, maybe we just say
"Firefox doesn't accept third party cookies by default," (it actually
accepts a modified third-party tracking list, you have to *tell* it to
turn of third party cookies entirely) which is a positive, instead of
"Chrome is surveillance software."

That Firefox does this is great. I donate to the Mozilla Foundation
because of it.

I was very surprised that Chrome doesn't appear to even offer a setting
to deny third-party cookies, however. I use Chrome to make Hangouts video
feeds work (and that's about it.)

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:20:56 -0500, in mozilla.general, Hartdonor wrote:

>I haven't
>tried using it in a while to see if Ghostery support fixed that.

Just tried it. Still not fixed. Ghostery relies upon a cookie for its
log-in feature, and first-party isolation prevents it from accessing it.
Even besides that, I had to specifically whitelist their account server
on my third-party cookie list to get it to work with a third-party cookie
ban policy.

So it broke Ghostery. I had forgotten about that.

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Don Spam's Reckless Son
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
Hartdonor wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:16:01 +0200, in mozilla.general, PietB wrote:
>
>> Hartdonor wrote:
>>> And they're talking about cookies, not scripts. Cookies? What is
>>> this? 1992?
>>
>> Nope: the everyday reality of 2019 and many years to go.
>>
>
> You missed the point. The point is they're calling Google Chrome
> "surveillance software" because it accepts cookies. That's just a hit
> job. All browsers accept cookies. Firefox used to accept third-party by
> default, and it wasn't "surveillance software" when it did.
>
> Neither is Chrome. At least not for that reason. The encouragement of
> persistent log-in to Google is a problem, but you can turn *that* off.
>
>>> Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use *any* browser.
>>
>> Sure. Use pen & paper, and a Stanley steam car to go shopping,
>> including buying cookies.
>>
>
> Exactly my point. If a user doesn't know how to deal with cookies, they
> should probably stop using the Internet. Otherwise, maybe we just say
> "Firefox doesn't accept third party cookies by default," (it actually
> accepts a modified third-party tracking list, you have to *tell* it to
> turn of third party cookies entirely) which is a positive, instead of
> "Chrome is surveillance software."
>
> That Firefox does this is great. I donate to the Mozilla Foundation
> because of it.
>
> I was very surprised that Chrome doesn't appear to even offer a setting
> to deny third-party cookies, however. I use Chrome to make Hangouts video
> feeds work (and that's about it.)
>

Up until a couple of years back, Firefox had a basic setting for cookie
handling.  The options I remember were:
- accept for the lifetime of the cookie
- accept until the end of the session
- reject (this may have been controlled via another setting)
- ask the user
This "ask the user" allowed you to set permissions on a site-to-site
basis, permitting the re-initialisation of cookies with every new
session.  There were howls of protest when that option was killed and a
lot of people indicated they were moving to Firefox clones such as
PaleMoon (?).  about:permissions allowed you to change decisions.

--
spammus ergo sum, viruses courtesy of https://www.nsa.gov/malware/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

PietB-2
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
Hartdonor wrote:
> PietB wrote:
>> Hartdonor wrote:
>>> Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use *any* browser.
>>
>> Sure. Use pen & paper, and a Stanley steam car to go shopping,
>> including buying cookies.
>
> Exactly my point. If a user doesn't know how to deal with cookies,
> they should probably stop using the Internet.

What exactly does the data transport network "Internet" have to do
with cookies? But if you're talking about web browsers and cookies,
90% or more of the web using population doesn't know how to deal
with cookies and lots of other things. If that would be reason to
go offline, it would become *very* quiet online and both economy
and freedom of speech would get a huge negative boost. And, oh yes,
there's an immense overlap between people who don't know how to deal
with cookies and people who use faecesbook and its forks, and thus
show they don't give a damn about privacy and tracking.

> Otherwise, maybe we just say "Firefox doesn't accept third party
> cookies by default,"

You mean FF has changed its default setting.

> (it actually accepts a modified third-party tracking list, you have
> to *tell* it to turn of third party cookies entirely) which is a
> positive

Really? How do you expect people who don't know how to deal with
cookies to manage third-party tracking lists?

> instead of "Chrome is surveillance software."

Sure. It's better to say "browsers are surveillance software".

-p

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

»Q«
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Hartdonor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You missed the point. The point is they're calling Google Chrome
> "surveillance software" because it accepts cookies. That's just a hit
> job. All browsers accept cookies. Firefox used to accept third-party
> by default, and it wasn't "surveillance software" when it did.

I'm confused about what defaults changed, if any.  I just created a new
profile with Fx 67.0.4, and it's accepting all cookies, except in
'private' windows, where it blocks known trackers.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by PietB-2
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:01:24 +0200, in mozilla.general, PietB wrote:

>Hartdonor wrote:
>> PietB wrote:
>>> Hartdonor wrote:
>>>> Holy crap if you're worried about cookies don't use *any* browser.
>>>
>>> Sure. Use pen & paper, and a Stanley steam car to go shopping,
>>> including buying cookies.
>>
>> Exactly my point. If a user doesn't know how to deal with cookies,
>> they should probably stop using the Internet.
>
>What exactly does the data transport network "Internet" have to do
>with cookies? But if you're talking about web browsers and cookies,
>90% or more of the web using population doesn't know how to deal
>with cookies and lots of other things. If that would be reason to
>go offline, it would become *very* quiet online and both economy
>and freedom of speech would get a huge negative boost. And, oh yes,
>there's an immense overlap between people who don't know how to deal
>with cookies and people who use faecesbook and its forks, and thus
>show they don't give a damn about privacy and tracking.
>
You know as well as I do that "the Internet" is not Layer 4 by its common
definition. Nobody uses Archie or Finger any longer. They use Google, and
they do that through a web browser or an app. For most people, the
Internet is email and browser (and phone apps) and that's it.

That goes double for NNTP or UUCP access, which almost nobody knows
about.

But I take your point. Most people are not educated about the Internet or
cookies, and have a rudimentary knowledge with which to protect their
privacy, if they know any thing at all.

>> Otherwise, maybe we just say "Firefox doesn't accept third party
>> cookies by default,"
>
>You mean FF has changed its default setting.
>
If you prefer that. I don't see a difference except in trivial semantics.

>> (it actually accepts a modified third-party tracking list, you have
>> to *tell* it to turn of third party cookies entirely) which is a
>> positive
>
>Really? How do you expect people who don't know how to deal with
>cookies to manage third-party tracking lists?
>
That's Firefox's default. It blocks "third party tracker" cookies by
default, and not all third-party cookies. So if they use Firefox, they're
getting a third-party tracking list whether they like it or not.

Besides, the end user isn't managing that list, Mozilla is.

Turning off third-party cookies entirely (rarely) breaks things, and
Mozilla would be blamed for it. This is a decent compromise.

>> instead of "Chrome is surveillance software."
>
>Sure. It's better to say "browsers are surveillance software".
>
Exactly. So the linked article is a FUD attack against Chrome. The horse
has left the barn, for *all* browsers. Chrome hasn't "become"
surveillance software, it's *all* been surveillance software, on some
level, since decades ago. They're singling out Chrome for not following
Firefox's most recent new defaults. It's a bit like the Budweiser
ingredients campaign, IMHO.

I don't like smear campaigns.

But I think we can agree that just banning third-party tracking cookies
isn't enough. You need to block third-party js code, too. There's no
point in giving folks a false sense of security.

But if you want even the minimal level of security by managing
third-party cookies, Firefox is the way to go. So I recommend Firefox to
people for its privacy features, and I try to educate them about cookies
and script blocking. Generally, I find Ghostery to be the easiest to use,
so I usually recommend that.

But I don't go around fear mongering about Chrome. I just promote
Firefox.

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Hartdonor
In reply to this post by »Q«
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:59:54 -0500, in mozilla.general, »Q« wrote:

>In <news:[hidden email]>,
>Hartdonor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> You missed the point. The point is they're calling Google Chrome
>> "surveillance software" because it accepts cookies. That's just a hit
>> job. All browsers accept cookies. Firefox used to accept third-party
>> by default, and it wasn't "surveillance software" when it did.
>
>I'm confused about what defaults changed, if any.  I just created a new
>profile with Fx 67.0.4, and it's accepting all cookies, except in
>'private' windows, where it blocks known trackers.
>
You know what? I think you're right. I thought it should be blocking
"third-party trackers" if you use the default cookie settings. It did
that on a complete reinstall for me, by default. And it changed it to
that several times (from "block *all* third-party") on a few recent
updates. That's why I thought it did that.

But in my current install, it doesn't do that. I did a quick juggle from
Standard to Custom privacy. When I got back to Custom, it wasn't blocking
cookies at all; just trackers in private windows.

If it's only in private windows, which was not my understanding, then
this article is really quite silly. Google does nearly the same thing in
Incognito mode. Tracking cookies can't work well if they don't persist
across sessions. All you have to do is delete them all when the browser
closes, and a private/incognito session does just that.

This article is just terrible. Firefox has the tools, but most people
won't be using them.

Surprisingly, Chrome doesn't have the option at all, though. Or I
couldn't find it.

--
Give all you can, don't give more than you can.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
My bloviated meandering follows what Hartdonor graced us with on
6/25/2019 1:35 PM:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:01:24 +0200, in mozilla.general, PietB wrote:
>
>>> instead of "Chrome is surveillance software."
>> Sure. It's better to say "browsers are surveillance software".
>>
> Exactly. So the linked article is a FUD attack against Chrome. The horse
> has left the barn, for *all* browsers. Chrome hasn't "become"
> surveillance software, it's *all* been surveillance software, on some
> level, since decades ago. They're singling out Chrome for not following
> Firefox's most recent new defaults. It's a bit like the Budweiser
> ingredients campaign, IMHO.
>
> I don't like smear campaigns.
>
I disagree. It's not FUD since the privacy issues the article laid out
are very real and the Google Chrome browser continues to accommodate
more sites that choose to exploit these features; whereas, Mozilla Fx is
working to provide default privacy safeguards. That's a legitimate
feature to differentiate the two browser and promote, imo.
>
> But I don't go around fear mongering about Chrome. I just promote
> Firefox.
>
Again, it's not fear mongering if the facts support the author.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google Chrome has become surveillance software.

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Hartdonor
My bloviated meandering follows what Hartdonor graced us with on
6/25/2019 1:48 PM:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:59:54 -0500, in mozilla.general, »Q« wrote:
>
>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> Hartdonor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> You missed the point. The point is they're calling Google Chrome
>>> "surveillance software" because it accepts cookies. That's just a hit
>>> job. All browsers accept cookies. Firefox used to accept third-party
>>> by default, and it wasn't "surveillance software" when it did.
>> I'm confused about what defaults changed, if any.  I just created a new
>> profile with Fx 67.0.4, and it's accepting all cookies, except in
>> 'private' windows, where it blocks known trackers.
>
> This article is just terrible. Firefox has the tools, but most people
> won't be using them.
>
Not disagreeing that most people won't use the tools; however, if the
article convinces others to become aware of the Chrome neglected privacy
issues and how Fx has taken steps to safeguard their privacy, how is
that a terrible thing write about?

> Surprisingly, Chrome doesn't have the option at all, though. Or I
> couldn't find it.
>



--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123