It doesn’t seem user data was compromised, but when privacy is a key feature of a project it’s bound to face greater scrutiny. They should have know better.
Exemplary
It doesn’t seem user data was compromised, but when privacy is a key feature of a project it’s bound to face greater scrutiny. They should have know better.
Yeah, this is just a bizarrely bad choice. Like what's the ideal outcome? If it was opt-in and reframed, some users would have chosen to allow the affiliate reference links for Brave, but now...
Yeah, this is just a bizarrely bad choice. Like what's the ideal outcome? If it was opt-in and reframed, some users would have chosen to allow the affiliate reference links for Brave, but now everyone is going to be forever suspicious that Brave is coding in some get rich quick scheme that's less obvious than URL manipulation.
I don't use their browser myself but I am a bit confused about this outrage. When I use Firefox for example they add a querry parameter to the URL when I use it to search on Google, so Google can...
I don't use their browser myself but I am a bit confused about this outrage. When I use Firefox for example they add a querry parameter to the URL when I use it to search on Google, so Google can identify them as the referrer and pay them. How is this different than what they are doing?
I haven't really payed attention to all this, so I might very well missing something.
Well, that's if you use the search feature, but this actually autocompletes the URL when you type it; you can enter www.google.com/?q=example without any interference in Firefox. Also, their...
Well, that's if you use the search feature, but this actually autocompletes the URL when you type it; you can enter www.google.com/?q=example without any interference in Firefox. Also, their parameter just identifies the client as Firefox (does Chrome not do this as well?), while this uses a specific referral code so I guess it seems more shady; many people were unaware that the websites were partners and it looked like they were abusing referrals on random websites.
Also, Brave has had a very clear and consistent track record of being shady in all kinds of things despite advertising itself as especially secure and private so they don't really get or deserve the benefit of the doubt. People aren't a fan of Firefox's deal with Google either but understand they need it to survive and it can be configured out.
But I doubt this would be particularly noteworthy if they kept the referral code to the shortcuts in the new tab landing page or as one of the lower suggestions when entering a URL, which are closer comparisons to the search query parameters in my opinion.
I didn't know that, but I did notice that Firefox isn't really protective of privacy when used as-is, out of the box. Carefully reviewing and adjusting the preferences is a must when unboxing any...
I didn't know that, but I did notice that Firefox isn't really protective of privacy when used as-is, out of the box. Carefully reviewing and adjusting the preferences is a must when unboxing any browser, whatever the vendor.
Adding parameters in the URL is far from the only way a browser can transmit informations to the server. Very far.
Of course, using Google's services is stepping into a world where the only value of privacy is determined by what can be used for targeted advertising.
Generally, on the internet, there are very very few things that do not involve some commercial transaction at some point. The wonderful world of libre software isn't powered only by happy thoughts and pixie dust. Websites that are free-to-use are, most often, powerful money machines. The consequences are terrifying.
I don't know exactly what is the business model of Mozilla, inc. The fact that it is overseen by the Mozilla Foundation makes it less evil, I guess. They still need to extract money from us, however circuitous and convoluted the money pipes are.
The global market of advertizing is, I think, something like $500 billions per year. This is the budget of a top-tier state.
It doesn’t seem user data was compromised, but when privacy is a key feature of a project it’s bound to face greater scrutiny. They should have know better.
Yeah, this is just a bizarrely bad choice. Like what's the ideal outcome? If it was opt-in and reframed, some users would have chosen to allow the affiliate reference links for Brave, but now everyone is going to be forever suspicious that Brave is coding in some get rich quick scheme that's less obvious than URL manipulation.
It might even work if it was opt out but clearly divulged and demarcated.
Brave has zero credibility between this and them keeping crypto meant to be distributed to users. They're a real mess.
I don't use their browser myself but I am a bit confused about this outrage. When I use Firefox for example they add a querry parameter to the URL when I use it to search on Google, so Google can identify them as the referrer and pay them. How is this different than what they are doing?
I haven't really payed attention to all this, so I might very well missing something.
Well, that's if you use the search feature, but this actually autocompletes the URL when you type it; you can enter www.google.com/?q=example without any interference in Firefox. Also, their parameter just identifies the client as Firefox (does Chrome not do this as well?), while this uses a specific referral code so I guess it seems more shady; many people were unaware that the websites were partners and it looked like they were abusing referrals on random websites.
Also, Brave has had a very clear and consistent track record of being shady in all kinds of things despite advertising itself as especially secure and private so they don't really get or deserve the benefit of the doubt. People aren't a fan of Firefox's deal with Google either but understand they need it to survive and it can be configured out.
But I doubt this would be particularly noteworthy if they kept the referral code to the shortcuts in the new tab landing page or as one of the lower suggestions when entering a URL, which are closer comparisons to the search query parameters in my opinion.
I didn't know that, but I did notice that Firefox isn't really protective of privacy when used as-is, out of the box. Carefully reviewing and adjusting the preferences is a must when unboxing any browser, whatever the vendor.
Adding parameters in the URL is far from the only way a browser can transmit informations to the server. Very far.
Of course, using Google's services is stepping into a world where the only value of privacy is determined by what can be used for targeted advertising.
Generally, on the internet, there are very very few things that do not involve some commercial transaction at some point. The wonderful world of libre software isn't powered only by happy thoughts and pixie dust. Websites that are free-to-use are, most often, powerful money machines. The consequences are terrifying.
I don't know exactly what is the business model of Mozilla, inc. The fact that it is overseen by the Mozilla Foundation makes it less evil, I guess. They still need to extract money from us, however circuitous and convoluted the money pipes are.
The global market of advertizing is, I think, something like $500 billions per year. This is the budget of a top-tier state.