This is bullshit, by the way. Whoever wrote the article's either intellectually lazy or clueless enough to where they should stop talking....
What privacy has the average Joe user gained by switching to Firefox? None. They’re still using Google Search and (most likely) other Google products. They’re being subjected to misleading ads on their new tab page. From their perspective, installing Firefox was a pointless hassle.
This is bullshit, by the way. Whoever wrote the article's either intellectually lazy or clueless enough to where they should stop talking.
But in its 10th anniversary release a couple of weeks ago, Chrome started exhibiting a new behavior that alarmed users who purposely stay logged out. If you're logged into a Google service like Gmail, an icon in the upper-right corner of Chrome windows now shows that you're logged into Google's browser as well, regardless of your previous preference.
Now, this doesn't seem too harmful on its own, does it? Waiiiit a second. Chrome with a Google account takes more of your data than without! Congratz, Google now has your entire browsing history!
And that's not even the scummiest thing Google's done with Chrome.
If anyone didn't know, you can turn off this behaviour by unchecking "Allow Chrome sign-in" on the Chrome settings page. The data captured as explained by Lifehacker seems quite small to me,...
If anyone didn't know, you can turn off this behaviour by unchecking "Allow Chrome sign-in" on the Chrome settings page.
The data captured as explained by Lifehacker seems quite small to me, compared to what I would have expected.
I'm annoyed by the title of the post. It isn't Mozilla's goal to win browser wars. Having enough influence to further the open web is more important than "beating" Chrome.
Those articles are from 2011 and 2018. They may be valid history, but they are probably not up to date, because browsers change and nobody updates the articles. Even if you're the kind of person...
Those articles are from 2011 and 2018. They may be valid history, but they are probably not up to date, because browsers change and nobody updates the articles.
Even if you're the kind of person who reads release notes, it's quite difficult to keep up to date with all the changes browsers are making, let alone the websites they connect to. It's a lot like benchmarking in that the results vary a lot depending on circumstances. The test matrix is positively enormous, especially if you include extensions.
I don't think we should stop talking, but maybe be a bit less confident about drawing broad conclusions? I'm hopeful that privacy discussions here don't get as heated as Hacker News. (Blog posts like this one certainly don't help.)
That's a fair comment, and I couldn't agree more about avoiding the heat of HN. I use both Chrome and Firefox frequently, and consider them both excellent pieces of technology. I'd rather work...
That's a fair comment, and I couldn't agree more about avoiding the heat of HN.
I use both Chrome and Firefox frequently, and consider them both excellent pieces of technology. I'd rather work from that premise than "X is malware designed to spy on you". That offers little nuance into the discussion.
It seems very unfair to to others to hide their responses from view just because you disagree with them. In fact I'm going to tag this as malice because I believe that is an inappropriate use of...
It seems very unfair to to others to hide their responses from view just because you disagree with them. In fact I'm going to tag this as malice because I believe that is an inappropriate use of site functionality. Submitting a topic should not grant you moderation abilities over what's inside.
It's the reason behind it that rubs me the wrong way, so no probably not. Without an explanation I could still imagine more charitable reasons for deletion (eg. concerned about privacy, or decided...
It's the reason behind it that rubs me the wrong way, so no probably not. Without an explanation I could still imagine more charitable reasons for deletion (eg. concerned about privacy, or decided the article's contents didn't meet the standards of the community).
However if you deleted and later resubmitted then those explanations also become null.
I'll grant that that's a more noble reason than my first interpretation. However I still believe that using site functionality in this way is not intended, and should be discouraged. Even if you...
I'll grant that that's a more noble reason than my first interpretation. However I still believe that using site functionality in this way is not intended, and should be discouraged. Even if you believe this example is justified, you may not like others using this tactic in threads that you've participated in.
This is bullshit, by the way. Whoever wrote the article's either intellectually lazy or clueless enough to where they should stop talking.
https://lifehacker.com/what-data-of-mine-does-chrome-send-to-google-5763452
https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-login-privacy/
Now, this doesn't seem too harmful on its own, does it? Waiiiit a second. Chrome with a Google account takes more of your data than without! Congratz, Google now has your entire browsing history!
And that's not even the scummiest thing Google's done with Chrome.
If anyone didn't know, you can turn off this behaviour by unchecking "Allow Chrome sign-in" on the Chrome settings page.
The data captured as explained by Lifehacker seems quite small to me, compared to what I would have expected.
The article is from 2011 it seems so there's been a lot of time for change.
@Wes
The intention was to show how it already wasn't perfect in 2011 and has gotten steadily worse, yeah.
As I wrote on Reddit:
Those articles are from 2011 and 2018. They may be valid history, but they are probably not up to date, because browsers change and nobody updates the articles.
Even if you're the kind of person who reads release notes, it's quite difficult to keep up to date with all the changes browsers are making, let alone the websites they connect to. It's a lot like benchmarking in that the results vary a lot depending on circumstances. The test matrix is positively enormous, especially if you include extensions.
I don't think we should stop talking, but maybe be a bit less confident about drawing broad conclusions? I'm hopeful that privacy discussions here don't get as heated as Hacker News. (Blog posts like this one certainly don't help.)
That's a fair comment, and I couldn't agree more about avoiding the heat of HN.
I use both Chrome and Firefox frequently, and consider them both excellent pieces of technology. I'd rather work from that premise than "X is malware designed to spy on you". That offers little nuance into the discussion.
It seems very unfair to to others to hide their responses from view just because you disagree with them. In fact I'm going to tag this as malice because I believe that is an inappropriate use of site functionality. Submitting a topic should not grant you moderation abilities over what's inside.
It's the reason behind it that rubs me the wrong way, so no probably not. Without an explanation I could still imagine more charitable reasons for deletion (eg. concerned about privacy, or decided the article's contents didn't meet the standards of the community).
However if you deleted and later resubmitted then those explanations also become null.
I'll grant that that's a more noble reason than my first interpretation. However I still believe that using site functionality in this way is not intended, and should be discouraged. Even if you believe this example is justified, you may not like others using this tactic in threads that you've participated in.