Firefox 75 will purge site data if associated with tracking cookies - gHacks Tech News

ADVERTISEMENT

Firefox 75 will purge site data if associated with tracking cookies

Mozilla plans to integrate a change in Firefox 75 to improve the privacy of users of the web browser further. The organization plans to purge site data of sites associated with tracking cookies automatically in the browser.

Firefox ships with tracking protection enabled and while that is a good first line of defense against tracking on the Internet, it is based on a list of known tracking sites which means that it does not protect against all site-based tracking attempts.

Tracking sites not on the list are not blocked and may therefore set cookies and use other means of tracking users. A relatively new way of tracking users came to light recently; called first-party tracking, it is making use of CNAME redirects to bypass most built-in and extension-based blockers.

Basically, what happens is that a subdomain of the site is redirected but since this happens after the initial blocking, it is not prevented by most blocking tools. The popular uBlock Origin extension for Firefox handles these by performing look-ups of these redirects and blocking resources identified as trackers or ad-servers.

Mozilla plans to integrate functionality into Firefox to purge cookies and other site data of tracking domains automatically which addresses first-party tracking attempts. The bug 1599262 on the organization's bug tracking site Bugzilla provides information on the new protection:

Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

Identify sites that set tracking cookies, remove those cookies (and other site data) if the site has not been interacted with in 30 days.

Firefox will check if sites that set tracking cookies are available; if they are and if the site has not been interacted with for 30 days, they are deleted.

firefox purge trackers

Mozilla created three preferences that handle the purging:

  • privacy.purge_trackers.enabled -- Defines whether the feature is enabled (True) or disabled (False).
  • privacy.purge_trackers.logging.enabled -- Defines whether the activity is logged (True) or not logged (False).
  • privacy.purge_trackers.max_purge_count -- Maximum number of cookies purged per batch (default 100).

If you don't want Firefox to purge site data and cookies of trackers automatically, you need to set privacy.purge_trackers.enabled  to false. If you don't want the process to be logged, set the privacy.purge_trackers.logging.enabled  to false. All three preferences can be managed on about:config and they are only available in the most recent Firefox 75 versions (Nightly) at the time of writing).

Closing Words

Mozilla continues to improve privacy protections in the Firefox web browser. Since it is also the only browser with support for the new uBlock Origin feature, it is becoming a good choice for privacy conscious users even if you consider the missteps in the past. It is also a good idea to block third-party cookies entirely in any browser to limit cookie-based tracking further.

Summary
Firefox 75 will purge site data if associated with tracking cookies
Article Name
Firefox 75 will purge site data if associated with tracking cookies
Description
Mozilla plans to integrate a change in Firefox 75 to improve the privacy of users of the web browser further by deleting site-data of tracking sites automatically.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 11:31 am
    Reply

    Two questions:

    > Firefox will check if sites that set tracking cookies are available; if they are and if the site has not been interacted with for 30 days, they are deleted.

    First question: Why wait for thirty days? Why not immediately? As far as I understand, “legitimate” cookies necessary for website operation are not affected by this, so why is this time period necessary? Concession to the advertising industry (not too farfetched, considering who finances Mozilla), perhaps?

    Second question: Will this feature be enabled in the release version by default? Because if it will not be enabled by default in the release version, as usual 99% of users won’t know about it, let alone use it. There are many settings Mozilla should set differently in the release version, but don’t, leaving them as about:config options for the 1% or so of the users which know about it and can toggle it.

    > Since it is also the only browser with support for the new uBlock Origin feature, it is becoming a good choice for privacy conscious users even if you consider the missteps in the past.

    I doubt they are done with their missteps yet, to be frank. One recent one is this:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/

    Firefox Mobile literally comes with trackers included(!). Firefox by default also allows Mozilla to install system add-ons via Firefox Experiments, i.e. they can add their “experiments” to Firefox without you noticing, behind your back. As always with Mozilla, this is opt-out instead of opt-in (as it should be).

    So yeah, I am OK with the changes described in the article, but I don’t get the waiting time. I also don’t applaud it until it is enabled by default(!) in the release(!) version. And I don’t think @Martin Brinkmann should recommend FF to privacy-conscious users, except to those who know how to tweak it accordingly. Because there are many things enabled by default in there that shouldn’t be enabled by default, at all.

  2. Omega said on March 4, 2020 at 11:34 am
    Reply

    “missteps” is a rather generous way of putting some of them. When all the defaults are also privacy friendly then they can come out of the naughty corner but I think that will only happen if their funding model changes and I can’t see that happening.

  3. Actually said on March 4, 2020 at 11:53 am
    Reply

    It said on githuib that Brave will be doing the same thing in their shields, so not the only browser.

    1. notanon said on March 4, 2020 at 12:43 pm
      Reply

      The API to block CNAMEs don’t exist in Blink, which is the browser engine for all Chromium based browsers (Brave is based on Blink & Chromium), so Brave has no mechanism to block/handle CNAMEs.

      Firefox includes the API to handle CNAMEs, which is why uBlock Origin for Firefox is better than uBlock Origin for the Chromium browsers.

      Brave will never be as good a Firefox.

      1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 1:00 pm
        Reply

        @notanonFUD

        Once again, you are wrong. Brave is already looking into CNAME handling:

        https://community.brave.com/t/unblockable-first-party-tracker-spotted/94440

        You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the Brave Shields are not dependent on any internal browser APIs, which only extensions have to rely on. Brave can add support for CNAME handling to their Shields just fine.

        > Firefox includes the API to handle CNAMEs, which is why uBlock Origin for Firefox is better than uBlock Origin for the Chromium browsers.

        You say it already: Firefox AND uBlock Origin. You are applauding Firefox for what another tool (uBlock Origin) does, by itself Firefox doesn’t do anything to block CNAMEs.

        > Brave will never be as good a Firefox.

        It already surpasses Firefox’s privacy settings by default. You hvae to heavily tweak Firefox in about:config and install several add-ons for it to reach the protection level Brave provides by default. And looking at the Firefox market share, I fully expect it to vanish completely within the next few years anyway.

      2. notanon said on March 6, 2020 at 3:09 am
        Reply

        @Ironheart, there’s NO DNS API in Chromium, so all browsers based on Chrome (Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.) can’t handle CNAMEs.

        Martin posted the answer months ago. Here’s the ghack article:

        uBlock Origin for Firefox addresses new first-party tracking method

        https://www.ghacks.net/2019/11/20/ublock-origin-for-firefox-addresses-new-first-party-tracking-method/

        Quote: “Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, found a way to address the new first-party tracking method in Mozilla Firefox.

        Side-note: Why only Firefox? Because Mozilla has created DNS APIs that may be used to expose the CNAME while Google has not. For now, it is not possible to protect against this form of tracking in Google Chrome. Hill writes “Best to assume it can’t be fixed on Chromium if it does not support the proper API”.”

        End of Quote.

        I don’t care what kind of lies Brave puts out, they are programming on top of the browser engine, they are NOT going to change the fundamental way the browser (in this case, Chromium) operates.

        If the Brave programmers were capable of accomplishing this, then they would build their own browser fork to Blink, but they aren’t capable of it.

        The fact that Brave has to rely on Google (through the Chromium project) for their browser engine speaks volumes.

        Brave will FAIL. It will NEVER be better than Google Chrome, because Google will throw an infinite amount of money to ensure that Chrome is the best Chromium based browser.

        Brave has no marketshare, & it never will. The only brainlets using Brave are people trying to collect a totally WORTHLESS crypto currency (there’s a reason Brave doesn’t use a legitimate crypto currency such as Bitcoin [Spoiler – because Brave SUCKS]).

        But keep spewing your LIES (with the same tired talking points) Ironheart, you need to earn you paycheck, shill.

      3. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 7:27 pm
        Reply

        @notanonFUD

        No need to post the same BS post twice. I’ve debunked it here already:

        https://www.ghacks.net/2020/03/04/firefox-75-will-purge-site-data-if-associated-with-tracking-cookies/#comment-4455884

      4. Actually said on March 4, 2020 at 3:31 pm
        Reply

        Brave shields don’t rely on api’s, it’s native code not an extension(s). In the same way manifest 3 crippling doesn’t effect them. So yes they can and will be doing it.

  4. John C. said on March 4, 2020 at 12:02 pm
    Reply

    And yet Firefox still calls out to numerous servers at startup and there’s no easy way to turn it all off. Mozilla is eventually going to go the way of Netscape. IMO, Pale Moon is the new Mozilla Firefox.

    1. Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 12:35 pm
      Reply

      I’d be more concerned about Brave’s source of funds really.

      >By August 2016, the company had received at least US$7 million in angel investments from venture capital firms, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Propel Venture Partners, Pantera Capital, Foundation Capital, and the Digital Currency Group.

      Here’s an archived version of Brave’s Wikipedia article in case that information disappears somehow ;) See the section #Business Model
      https://web.archive.org/web/20200227000950/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)

      Peter Thiel is the chairman of Palantir Technologies. Wikipedia describes Palantir Technologies like this:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20200128121847/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies

      >Palantir Technologies is a private American software company that specializes in big data analytics. Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, it was founded by Peter Thiel, Nathan Gettings, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Alex Karp.

      Further along the Wikipedia page, we start to see some interesting stuff

      >The company is known for three projects in particular: Palantir Gotham, Palantir Metropolis and Palantir Foundry. Palantir Gotham is used by counter-terrorism analysts at offices in the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) and United States Department of Defense, fraud investigators at the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, and cyber analysts at Information Warfare Monitor, while Palantir Metropolis is used by hedge funds, banks, and financial services firms.

      Which is really concerning if you ask me. You keep mentioning how Google funds Mozilla. I’d be concerned more about an DoD contractor funding my “privacy concerned” browser to be quite honest. Seems like a honeypot to me.

      1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 1:20 pm
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous

        Well, Brave’s business model is advertising. However, their goal is to make advertising privacy-friendly by serving the ads locally. Also, Brave Ads are fully opt-in, meaning if someone is using it, said someone has decided to use it. If one decides to use it, what will happen is the following: Brave will download a list of ads periodically, and it will analyze your browsing locally. Based on this local analysis, it will opt for the appropriate ads that will be served to you locally. Nothing related to your browsing data ever reaches Brave or any third party in the process. That the investor of Brave is in the same industry as Brave is not surprising at all. My problem with Mozilla is also that they are almost entirely funded by the company offering the direct competitor of Firefox – this is what a cartel looks like.

        And btw, one can analyze the servers Brave contacts, they are fairly low in number, and the requests are legitimate (update server, adblock & HTTPS Everywhere rule updates, SafeBrowsing, and if you decide to use Brave Ads: download of the ad lists meant for the local serving of ads). Based on what Brave actually DOES (which you can monitor), it is superior to Mozilla Firefox as it stands. I mean, FF literally comes with trackers by default:

        https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/

        And contrary to anything Brave does, these trackers do phone home. Quite a bit.

      2. Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 4:59 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        >Well, Brave’s business model is advertising. […]
        Yawn. Advertisers and “””content creators””” can go die in a ditch for all I care. Internet would go back to its glory days without fake news, clickbait articles and corporations ruining the fun for the rest of us. Put the internet back into the hands of hobbyists! You’ll need to pry uBlock Origin from my cold dead hands.

        >Brave or any third party in the process. That the investor of Brave is in the same industry as Brave is not surprising at all. My problem with Mozilla is also that they are almost entirely funded by the company offering the direct competitor of Firefox – this is what a cartel looks like.

        This doesn’t make sense at all. So I guess you don’t mind a spy organization owning a stake in Brave, which is supposed to be a privacy respecting browser. A conflict of interests, which doesn’t look good at all. Your situation seems to be a case study example of cognitive dissonance.

        >And btw, one can analyze the servers Brave contacts, they are fairly low in number, and the requests are legitimate (update server, adblock & HTTPS Everywhere rule updates, SafeBrowsing, and if you decide to use Brave Ads: download of the ad lists meant for the local serving of ads). Based on what Brave actually DOES (which you can monitor), it is superior to Mozilla Firefox as it stands. I mean, FF literally comes with trackers by default:

        Doesn’t matter. It phones home every time you launch Brave. It also downloads a list of “partners” at every boot. I don’t want that. I don’t want to store an entire list of their partners on my computer. Why would I? That should be opt-in.

        >And contrary to anything Brave does, these trackers do phone home. Quite a bit.

        I don’t care about the newspeak words you constantly come up with. Phoning home is defined such as:

        >Phoning Home, in computing, refers to an act of client to server communication which may be undesirable to the user and/or proprietor of the device or software.

        Which is pretty wide encompassing as you can see here. Any kind of unsolicited connection can be regarded as phoning home, and Brave does call back home quite a lot! Pale Moon and Ungoogled Chromium doesn’t do that by default, absolutely no connections. Both of them seem to be light years ahead of Brave privacy wise.

      3. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 5:35 pm
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous

        > Yawn. Advertisers and “””content creators””” can go die in a ditch for all I care. Internet would go back to its glory days without fake news, clickbait articles and corporations ruining the fun for the rest of us. Put the internet back into the hands of hobbyists!

        Well, that’s your opinion. Websites still have to finance themselves somehow, though. Unless you can erect paywalls (few websites can), the model of financing is advertising. Currently, ad companies are trying to snoop out your browsing history / habits on a remote server. What Brave tries to do is to make ads more privacy-friendly by serving them locally (which is objectively better than your data being analyzed on some remote server you don’t control), granting users their fair share via BAT, and auto-contributing to content creators based on the time users spend on their websites. Sounds better to me than what is going on now. In an ideal world, all websites would be for free, and no ad would appear anywhere. But we don’t live in such a world, everybody has to pay their bills somehow. And I am happy if I can help finance websites / content creators in a manner that doesn’t violate my own privacy.

        For example: I used to block gHacks’ ads and felt somewhat bad about it, since I do read the news here on a fairly regular basis, but at the same time I don’t want advertisers spying on me. The solution is Brave: I still block gHacks’ ads, but now I contribute BAT to the website based on the time I visit it.

        > You’ll need to pry uBlock Origin from my cold dead hands.

        You can use uBlock Origin in almost all browsers AFAIK, only one of which is Brave.

        > This doesn’t make sense at all. So I guess you don’t mind a spy organization owning a stake in Brave, which is supposed to be a privacy respecting browser. A conflict of interests, which doesn’t look good at all.

        I do mind it, I am just not up in arms about it, for two reasons:

        1) Brave doesn’t rely on Thiel’s money in order to survive. He is one out of many investors, while Mozilla relies on Google’s money for its very existence.
        2) Contrary to Firefox, Brave has not done anything shady within the browser itself(!) yet. If it did, I would jump ship very quickly. Until then, I’ll stay with it.

        > Your situation seems to be a case study example of cognitive dissonance.

        Come on, that’s really unnecessary. Take your insults and shove them.

        > Doesn’t matter. It phones home every time you launch Brave.

        And by “phoning home” you mean that it contacts the update server. A browser needs to secured in a timely manner if a vulnerability shows up, that’s what automatic updates are for. The data it transmits are your operating system and Brave’s version number, both of which it needs in order to determine which update file is sent to you.

        > It also downloads a list of “partners” at every boot.

        Yes, it downloads a list of its partners by default. That doesn’t violate your privacy, though. No personal data of yours are being sent back to Brave, it just downloads an ordinary list.

        If you complain about that, I wonder how you deal with cookies, service workers, session identifiers etc., or in general data some random website might make your browser download automatically. That’s by far worse (as these things actually analyze your browsing), yet you don’t complain.

        > That should be opt-in.

        It *is* opt-in. Brave Ads are opt-in, and the list by itself does nothing. It is just a list sitting there.

        > Any kind of unsolicited connection can be regarded as phoning home, and Brave does call back home quite a lot!

        “Unsolicited” is the key word here, not every connection a browser establishes is unwarranted “phoning home”.

        > Pale Moon and Ungoogled Chromium doesn’t do that by default, absolutely no connections. Both of them seem to be light years ahead of Brave privacy wise.

        Pale Moon and Ungoogled Chromium are both very good in terms of privacy, I take no issue with them when it comes to their privacy level. However, as I’ve already said, there are unwarranted connections and there are warranted connections. Having an internal updater falls under “warranted connection”, IMHO, especially when it comes to browsers, as browsers are in need of continued security updates. Not having an automatic updater would put especially inexperienced users at a severe risk. And what does Brave submit to the update server again? Your operating system and Brave’s version number – both of which are absolutely required in order for the server to determine which update file is sent to you. That’s not a privacy violation, what do you expect the company behind Brave to do with the knowledge of what OS and which Brave version number you use? None of this data can be used for anything advertising-related.

      4. Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 6:34 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        >Well, that’s your opinion.

        Of course. And those are your opinions. I already pay them with my data and I think they don’t deserve anything more. I’m glad we agree to disagree.

        >For example: I used to block gHacks’ ads and felt somewhat bad about it, since I do read the news here on a fairly regular basis, but at the same time I don’t want advertisers spying on me. The solution is Brave: I still block gHacks’ ads, but now I contribute BAT to the website based on the time I visit it.

        They can put their Monero address at the bottom of the page which I might tip here and then. Monero is decentralized and maintained by a global network of volunteers. It’s also private and protects both senders and receivers from being spied on. Unlike BAT, which is centralized and issued solely by Brave Software. It can also be trivially spied on.

        >You can use uBlock Origin in almost all browsers AFAIK, only one of which is Brave.

        Yes, but Brave Shields (which let Facebook and Twitter trackers through) and system notification ads are pushed as alternatives to completely blocking ads with uBlock Origin, which doesn’t sit right with me.

        >1) Brave doesn’t rely on Thiel’s money in order to survive. He is one out of many investors, while Mozilla relies on Google’s money for its very existence.

        Yes because Brave doesn’t maintain an entire browser engine by itself. All the heavy lifting is done by Google, and Brave adds some pretty useless features on top of Chromium, such as content blockers that let even Facebook trackers through and throughly horrible compared to uBlock Origin. There is also a torrent client within Brave for some reason. It’s also really bad.

        >2) Contrary to Firefox, Brave has not done anything shady within the browser itself(!) yet. If it did, I would jump ship very quickly. Until then, I’ll stay with it.

        Fair enough. I expect them to do some shady things soon seeing how you can’t turn off updates and they can push an update to change the entire dynamic of their browser within a day. Seeing their Terms of Service, how they can collect donations in behalf of your name (which they should be sued over for) and sit on them if they desire so. Good luck switching everyone to a new browser after that.

        >Come on, that’s really unnecessary. Take your insults and shove them.

        I’m speaking the truth. You are self-conflicting, which I’m merely pointing out. Keep calm.

        >And by “phoning home” you mean that it contacts the update server. A browser needs to secured in a timely manner if a vulnerability shows up, that’s what automatic updates are for. The data it transmits are your operating system and Brave’s version number, both of which it needs in order to determine which update file is sent to you.

        It shouldn’t phone home to ask for updates without my permission. I don’t want Brave to know
        1)How often I relaunch my browser
        2)My current IP address, which they can sell to advertisers or spy organizations like Palantir Technologies

        >Yes, it downloads a list of its partners by default. That doesn’t violate your privacy, though. No personal data of yours are being sent back to Brave, it just downloads an ordinary list.

        My IP address is sent to Brave, which is personally identifying information and it also downloads a list of their partners, which I don’t want.

        >If you complain about that, I wonder how you deal with cookies, service workers, session identifiers etc., or in general data some random website might make your browser download automatically. That’s by far worse (as these things actually analyze your browsing), yet you don’t complain.

        I block most of them and elect not to use websites full of them as best I can. I also have pihole running in my home network as a second layer of defense. No need to concern yourself about that.

        >“Unsolicited” is the key word here, not every connection a browser establishes is unwarranted “phoning home”.

        I don’t want Brave to check for updates without my permission, which makes those connections unsolicidated. Now I need to blacklist their domains on my pihole just so Brave can’t spy on me, which is pretty ironic don’t you think? We are back on square one.

        >Pale Moon and Ungoogled Chromium are both very good in terms of privacy, I take no issue with them when it comes to their privacy level. However, as I’ve already said, there are unwarranted connections and there are warranted connections. Having an internal updater falls under “warranted connection”, IMHO, especially when it comes to browsers, as browsers are in need of continued security updates. Not having an automatic updater would put especially inexperienced users at a severe risk. And what does Brave submit to the update server again? Your operating system and Brave’s version number – both of which are absolutely required in order for the server to determine which update file is sent to you. That’s not a privacy violation, what do you expect the company behind Brave to do with the knowledge of what OS and which Brave version number you use? None of this data can be used for anything advertising-related.

        It could ask before checking for updates and I should be able to decline if I wish. There should also be an option to set update check frequency, which I would set to once a week, not every time I launch my browser so Brave can spy on my browsing habits.

      5. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 8:54 pm
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous

        > Of course. And those are your opinions. I already pay them with my data and I think they don’t deserve anything more.

        But your data being processed on some remote server is what Brave attempts to change, isn’t it? They want the data processing to happen on your local machine, which is more privacy-friendly, as the data no longer has to be sent anywhere.

        Anyhow, you blocking ads means that website owners earn nothing, and you refuse to compensate them, while I do compensate with BAT. Brave makes the system more fair for all involved parties, IMHO.

        > Yes, but Brave Shields (which let Facebook and Twitter trackers through) and system notification ads are pushed as alternatives to completely blocking ads with uBlock Origin, which doesn’t sit right with me.

        Again, you are free to use uBlock Origin in basically any browser, including Brave. Brave did whitelist some Twitter and Facebook trackers because the two companies misuse trackers for basic functionality. Brave used to block these trackers by default, but users found that blocking them breaks Twitter and Facebook, e.g. the Facebook login doesn’t work if a certain tracker is blocked, as they require the tracker not to be blocked for a successful login to take place. Frankly, it is not the fault of Brave that Twitter and Facebook behave like this. Brave is also transparent about their whitelist and you can disable it in the settings, if you don’t use Twitter or Facebook. You always try to make it seem like Brave whitelisted them out of bad intentions, which is provably false. By the way, uBlock Origin doesn’t block those trackers either. If it did, you would not be able to perform a Facebook login with uBlock Origin enabled.

        > Yes because Brave doesn’t maintain an entire browser engine by itself. All the heavy lifting is done by Google

        Doesn’t change the fact that Mozilla is funded by its “competitor” Google. If Google decided to cease paying them, no amount of “lifting” would take place at Mozilla anymore, at all. They would just shut down. If you are dependent on a competitor to that degree, then you can’t really pretend to be in “competition” anymore, let alone to “fight against Google”.

        > throughly horrible compared to uBlock Origin

        Citation needed. Brave Shields are generally considered to have a solid technical foundation. They do still lack some uBlock Origin features, but the Brave team plans on adding more functionality to it.

        >There is also a torrent client within Brave for some reason.

        Part of the Chromium base, can be disabled in the settings.

        > I expect them to do some shady things

        Until they *really do*, I’ll stay with it.

        > seeing how you can’t turn off updates and they can push an update to change the entire dynamic of their browser within a day.

        You can’t turn automatic updates off in any major browser these days, as far as I know. As for “change the entire dynamic within a single day”, this can also happen with any other major or minor browser. To be frank, I didn’t think Mozilla would inject the Cliqz spyware or the Mr. Robot extension overnight, yet it also happened. Something like this has yet to happen to Brave, lol.

        > Seeing their Terms of Service, how they can collect donations in behalf of your name (which they should be sued over for)

        Well, the BAT you donate goes to the Brave partners (like gHacks is one), but they do have to partner with Brave in order to collect BAT donations of course. But then, what did you expect? How would a website collect BAT if they do not accept BAT (if they are not partnered with Brave)? Makes no sense.

        > Good luck switching everyone to a new browser after that.

        Switching browsers takes a few minutes, not sure what you are on about. People do it more often than you might think.

        > I’m speaking the truth. You are self-conflicting,

        No, I’m not. Brave does not rely on Thiel’s money to even exist, and they don’t have a reputation of doing shady things in the browser yet. Can’t say the same about the Mozilla-Google dynamic.

        > I don’t want Brave to know 1)How often I relaunch my browser 2)My current IP address, which they can sell to advertisers or spy organizations like Palantir Technologies

        If you understanding of privacy is that extreme, I imagine you can hardly use any browser. Your IP address is hardly information that is worthwhile to advertisers all by itself. Every website you ever visited already has your IP address. What the advertisers want is your browsing history / interaction with websites, and Brave itself does not record this in order to send it somewhere else, and it aims to prevent websites from doing the same.

        > I don’t want Brave to check for updates without my permission, which makes those connections unsolicidated.

        Again, that’s a very extreme definition of privacy. Browser makers (any browser maker, really) strive to achieve a good balance for every kind of user. Browsers are also products that need to be patched often, as they are a likely target of hackers. Since there are also inexperienced users (commonly called noobs), having automatic updates in the browser is the only sane choice from a security perspective. If you are experienced enough to not need them, then that’s fine by me. But you shouldn’t assume that this is true for everyone out there.

        > Now I need to blacklist their domains on my pihole just so Brave can’t spy on me, which is pretty ironic don’t you think?

        The OS you use, the Brave version number, and your IP (so that the download actually reaches its destination, lol) is hardly “spying”, pal. “Spying” is snooping out your actual browsing history and website interaction, and sending that data to a remote server, which Brave doesn’t do. If your definition of “spying” exceeds this, then your definition is very radical to say the least.

        > It could ask before checking for updates and I should be able to decline if I wish. There should also be an option to set update check frequency, which I would set to once a week, not every time I launch my browser so Brave can spy on my browsing habits.

        I agree with this. That being said, the current state of affairs is that almost all browsers update themselves automatically, without user permission. It’s not limited to Brave.

        > and that page contains Piwik’s analytics scripts.

        That’s not a tracker which is in any shape or form part of the browser, though. That’s like saying Firefox is totally bad because some Mozilla website contains a tracker. Makes no sense.

      6. Not Anonymous said on March 5, 2020 at 11:19 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        No, my concerns are not extreme. Short reply because I don’t have the energy to carry on this conversation anymore. Take care.

      7. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 10:23 am
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous

        Nice way to back out, buddy. Will remember that one whenever I run out of arguments.

      8. Not Anonymous said on March 6, 2020 at 2:31 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        I don’t have all the time in the world to reply to your all your posts but you don’t seem to have any arguments left either so I’m content with how things are right now. I made my case and exposed Brave for what it is and I’ll see myself out.

      9. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 7:30 pm
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous

        > I made my case and exposed Brave for what it is

        You didn’t do that.

        > and I’ll see myself out.

        You did do that.

        Anyway, I don’t have the time to once again debunk your usual walls of text, either.

      10. Samanto Hermes said on March 8, 2020 at 1:07 am
        Reply

        Nice weasel words there.

        > You can’t turn automatic updates off in any major browser these days, as far as I know

        Just because everyone does it, doesn’t mean it’s right for Brave to do it.

        > If you are experienced enough to not need them, then that’s fine by me. But you shouldn’t assume that this is true for everyone out there

        That’s exactly why the users that don’t need them should be able to disable them. Also, such anti-users decisions prevent children, teenagers or anyone who is starting to use computers from becoming experienced users. Thus it makes sense that Chrome is dumbed down since the start and that their controlled opposition has also done so with Firefox.

      11. Iron Heart said on March 8, 2020 at 4:39 pm
        Reply

        @Samanto Hermes

        I agree that Brave should have an option to turn updates off. That’s not even a point I would argue against. But still, the hint that every major browser also does it is legitimate, if they are the chosen point of comparison.

      12. Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 7:29 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        Last thing. Taken from https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html
        Brave will connect to its home page, https://brave.com, automatically on the first run of Brave, and that page contains Piwik’s analytics scripts.

      13. Anonymous said on March 5, 2020 at 4:07 am
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous
        You’re giving the url because you’re out of argument? Same thing with Firefox: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

      14. 3rdrock said on March 4, 2020 at 3:45 pm
        Reply

        I don’t care about or use BAT and their ad systems but at least it’s opt-in which makes a nice change these days (more than you can say about ff). Yes they do have the toolbar button and it’s on the startpage to entice you and which you do need to turn off if you find them annoying but you aren’t forced to use anything you don’t want to.

        Do I care more if they taken a relatively pocket change amount from a company who has some DoD contracts vs a so called privacy browser that takes $500m from google? Not really especially looking at the work they do.

        As for connections, that was analysed in the report highlighted here last week and it did better than firefox or anything else (with edge, shock horror, being “much more worrisome than the other browsers studied”).

      15. Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 6:11 pm
        Reply

        >As for connections, that was analysed in the report highlighted here last week and it did better than firefox or anything else (with edge, shock horror, being “much more worrisome than the other browsers studied”).

        That “”report”” didn’t include Pale Moon and Ungoogled Chromium as a part of their experiment, which says a lot about the neutrality of those “”researchers””. They should have also taken Tor Browser into consideration, with Tor disabled. That’s basically a hardened to the core fork of Firefox. Let’s see how these three browsers fare against Brave. But of course won’t see them reporting on this, and you can probably guess why.

      16. 3rdrock said on March 4, 2020 at 9:53 pm
        Reply

        It was written by Douglas J. Leith, a professor at Trinity College at the University of Dublin and goes in to plenty of detail as to why he came up with his conclusions. What are you qualifications to simply rubbish it and call it biased?

        Pale Moon and especially Ungoogled Chromium have tiny user bases. Yes Brave’s isn’t huge either but is growing far faster and is being spoken about much more as a privacy browser so it made sense to check the claims out. Yes he could have tested absolutely every browser out there but he tested that and then the main browsers which seems fair.

        I remember Tor themselves saying not to disable tor in their browser so that not a great suggestion.

      17. dosteirs said on March 7, 2020 at 1:07 am
        Reply

        @Not Anonymous
        >I’d be more concerned about Brave’s source of funds really.

        Don’t use Brave on the desktop, but the latest Android update requests permission to determine the phone number, device ID, whether a call is active and if so, the phone number being called. Why does a web browser need to know any of this? Something very fishy!

  5. JohnIL said on March 4, 2020 at 12:30 pm
    Reply

    I wish Firefox would spend more time on performance as they do on being the net nanny browser. I tried it on my Macbook and couldn’t believe how bad it was. I get that Firefox feels privacy is their niche but you still need a good performing browser. This is why Firefox lost so many users previously was with a terribly performing browser.

    1. Not Not Anonymous said on March 4, 2020 at 1:10 pm
      Reply

      @Not Anonymous
      was composed and meant for the first post. I don’t understand how it ended up multiple posts below but okay. Please fix.

  6. notanon said on March 4, 2020 at 12:35 pm
    Reply

    @Martin, thanks for the article, this is fantastic. Please include a reminder in the future Firefox 75 article.

    Only Firefox can protect people for CNAME redirects/First Party Tracking, since the API necessary to do this is implemented in Firefox, but NOT Chrome, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Chromium, other Chromium clones, etc.

    I wonder what kind of lame response Ironheart will post, since he posts replies to every post I make (kinda like an unwanted stalker).

    1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 1:11 pm
      Reply

      @notanonFUD

      > Only Firefox can protect people for CNAME redirects/First Party Tracking, since the API necessary to do this is implemented in Firefox, but NOT Chrome, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Chromium, other Chromium clones, etc.

      Some Chromium-based browsers, like Brave and Opera, have adblockers built-in. These adblockers do not rely on any extension API. So what Chromium’s APIs allow or don’t allow is not an issue to them. That means your comment is the usual FUD, as I have pointed out here:

      https://www.ghacks.net/2020/03/04/firefox-75-will-purge-site-data-if-associated-with-tracking-cookies/#comment-4455669

      > I wonder what kind of lame response Ironheart will post, since he posts replies to every post I make (kinda like an unwanted stalker).

      You are already afraid of my responses, I see. Well, you should be, as I tend to reveal your FUD for what it is in no time. If you don’t want me to reply in a public comment section (lol), just don’t post FUD, so that nobody has to debunk it anymore.

      1. notanon said on March 6, 2020 at 2:48 am
        Reply

        Ironheart, you don’t understand CNAMEs, & what it does.

        STOP LYING about ad blockers nonsense, Martin posted the answer months ago.

        Chrome Extension Manifest V3 could end uBlock Origin for Chrome

        https://www.ghacks.net/2019/11/20/ublock-origin-for-firefox-addresses-new-first-party-tracking-method/

        Quote: “Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, found a way to address the new first-party tracking method in Mozilla Firefox.

        Side-note: Why only Firefox? Because Mozilla has created DNS APIs that may be used to expose the CNAME while Google has not. For now, it is not possible to protect against this form of tracking in Google Chrome. Hill writes “Best to assume it can’t be fixed on Chromium if it does not support the proper API”.”

        End of Quote.

        You’re NOT smarter than gorhill, the creator/owner of the best content blocker on the planet, uBlock Origin.

        Stop LYING.

        There is NO DNS API in Chromium, so Brave (which uses the Chromium browser engine) will NEVER be able to handle CNAMEs.

        Dumbass.

        All the Chromium browsers are just shells/interfaces on top on the Chromium browser engine. They can program on top of it, but they can’t change the fundamental way the browser operates.

        Brave doesn’t have any marketshare & will NEVER succeed, since Google Chrome is the best Chromium browser (& always will be, because they can throw infinite dollars at making it better than Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.).

        If you’re using any of the Chromium browsers, you don’t care about your privacy, so the only defect in Chrome can’t be exploited by other Chromium based browsers (Chromium is controlled by Google).

      2. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 10:43 am
        Reply

        @notanonFUD

        > Ironheart, you don’t understand CNAMEs, & what it does.

        I know what it does, no assumptions please.

        > Chrome Extension Manifest V3 could end uBlock Origin for Chrome

        Chrome /= Chromium, buddy. Never said that uBlock Origin will survive in Chrome. At least not in the consumer version anyway, Google has announced that they won’t cripple the webRequest API (which is the API uBlock Origin uses) in the Enterprise version of Chrome.

        > You’re NOT smarter than gorhill, the creator/owner of the best content blocker on the planet, uBlock Origin.

        You already say it, “creator of uBlock Origin”. uBlock Origin is an extension, meaning it relies on extension APIs. Native code of the browser is not reliant on extension APIs. Brave Shields for example, are NOT a browser extension, but native code. Therefore, they do NOT rely on any extension API, and therefore are NOT affected by any change Google applies to any extension API.

        > Stop LYING.

        Start UNDERSTANDING. You don’t know what you are talking about, not even the basics.

        > There is NO DNS API in Chromium, so Brave (which uses the Chromium browser engine) will NEVER be able to handle CNAMEs.

        Brave Shields are not an extension, therefore they don’t rely on extension APIs. Brave can implement CNAME blocking just fine with native code. It gets tiresome, you don’t even know what Brave Shields are (hint: not an extension), and therefore you don’t know their potential capabilities.

        > Dumbass.

        Idiot who understands nothing. How’s that?

        > All the Chromium browsers are just shells/interfaces on top on the Chromium browser engine. They can program on top of it, but they can’t change the fundamental way the browser operates.

        Learn the difference between native browser code and external extension code. Native browser code is not under the same limitations as external extension code, as only the external extension code as to rely on APIs. You don’t even get the basics right.

        > Brave doesn’t have any marketshare & will NEVER succeed

        Brave grows with a very good rate so far (contrary to Firefox, which shrinks), so I take this speculation of yours with a hefty grain of salt.

        > since Google Chrome is the best Chromium browser

        Citation needed. Google has the most marketing budget, it doesn’t produce the best Chromium-based browser. Google Chrome can’t logically be the best Chromium-based browser, because other Chromium-based browsers have additional functionality compared to Chrome.

        > & always will be, because they can throw infinite dollars at making it better than Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.

        Funnily enough, Google Chrome isn’t at all better than any of the browsers you just mentioned, lol.

        > If you’re using any of the Chromium browsers, you don’t care about your privacy

        But if you use Firefox, you do care about privacy? What a joke, lol. Check out the myriad of connections Firefox establishes on startup, compared to e.g. literally zero connections of Ungoogled Chromium on startup, and then return to me. Firefox is shit for privacy, and Mozilla continues to include new spyware anti-features which each new upgrade. Which is not too surprising, considering that Google funds Mozilla.

        > so the only defect in Chrome can’t be exploited by other Chromium based browsers

        This makes no sense, buddy. Chromium is free and open source software, anyone can take the code and modify it as they see it.

        > (Chromium is controlled by Google)

        Once again, wrong. Google Chrome is controlled by Google, and Google Chrome is an offshoot of Chromium. Chromium itself is free and open source software to which many companies contribute (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Opera, Samsung etc.), it is not “owned” by Google, Google is just the biggest contributor going by the absolute number of commits. But they do not in any way “own” Chromium, they only own Chrome.

    2. Rayband said on March 4, 2020 at 7:04 pm
      Reply

      @notanon If you don’t know what you’re talking about then it’s best to shhhh.

      1. notanon said on March 6, 2020 at 2:51 am
        Reply

        @Rayband, read my reply to Ironheart.

        And read the article Martin posted on ghacks

        https://www.ghacks.net/2019/11/20/ublock-origin-for-firefox-addresses-new-first-party-tracking-method/

        And don’t post nonsense anymore, because YOU don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

        Learn to read or STFU.

  7. John G. said on March 4, 2020 at 12:47 pm
    Reply

    All modern browsers should have a safe clear option at least dod5220.22-m for safety purposes to safe erase cache, cookies and other risky pieces of junk visited stuff. More precisely, I wouldn’t recommend to simply deleted all banking data traces, online shopping and so forth. And as one comment said above, why to wait 30 days? This should be done at end of session! 😑

  8. sam said on March 4, 2020 at 12:50 pm
    Reply

    It’s so funny to skim through all the repetitive nonsense by the incredibly predictable Brave fanboys who are too ashamed to reveal their real agenda. Mozilla is taking a significant step forward (before Google, Apple, Opera, or Brave), and all these trolls can do is bash, criticize, whine, and complain. So pathetic.

    1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 1:06 pm
      Reply

      @sam

      > Mozilla is taking a significant step forward

      How do you know? Has Mozilla enabled the feature by default in the stable release version of Firefox yet? Until they do that, they haven’t done anything at all.

      > Brave fanboys who are too ashamed to reveal their real agenda.

      And what agenda would that be? Care to enlighten us? Or is this just again the “throwing dirt at someone, hoping that something will stick”, as usual?

    2. Allwynd said on March 4, 2020 at 1:25 pm
      Reply

      And yet you can’t help but sound like a Firefox *** [Editor: removed, please no personal attacks] yourself. Bet you just stand with a cup of tea admiring your Firefox desktop shortcut while feeling tingly on the inside.

  9. Jeff said on March 4, 2020 at 2:17 pm
    Reply

    I read the privacy Comparison between web browsers
    https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html
    and they confirmed my findings.

    But I was curious of not having tried the top rated Icecat browser.
    So here are my steps:

    Home page
    https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Gnuzilla

    I use pc with mx-linux and Debian so I downloaded the binaries:
    icecat-60.7.0.en-US.gnulinux-x86_64.tar.bz2 from https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuzilla/60.7.0/

    To create a (OS unaware privacy/) portable version simply uncompress icecat into my Download directory. Then simply run icecat program.

    Icecat creates a /home/username/.mozilla/icecat folder for its extension and settings

    Extensions
    Icecat only works with webextensions add-ons
    Can download exrensions directly:
    https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases?after=firefox-legacy-1.16.4.9
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chameleon-ext/
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=search
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fire-clear-cache/?src=search
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/?src=search

    In a new twist The newtab shows the browser Privacy Dashboard
    In a first here is no network traffic when opening or closing the browser
    Least amount of changes in about:config
    Follows Richard Stallman principles (not secret data-mining commerical hedge funds!)

    Icecat is my clear first choice for surfing the web anonymously

    Prevent last tab closing the browser
    browser.tabs.closeWindowWithLastTab = false
    turn off all autocomplete settings

    No Issues but Understanding
    Multiple extensions can overlap with new types of functionality:
    Take the Disable JavaScript setting and GNU LibreJS
    Take uBlock Origin vs. internal Block third-party requests

    Cons
    Comes with innocuous bloatware which can only be disabled – not removed.
    Example: Rock and Roll McDonalds

    Logging on to Amazon is better handled in Palemoon or Firefox – where I have a set (disabling privacy extensions) procedure to follow. In other words provide Amazon the same fingerprint and IP address

    Less frequent Updates – current version is based upon 60.7.0esr

  10. @ said on March 4, 2020 at 2:21 pm
    Reply

    Shut up, all of you, with your squabbles about browsers!!! Every Single Thread! You’re probably just copy-and-pasting your arguments. Take your verbal assaults somewhere else. Comment on the article, or better yet, don’t comment at all and let there be peace.

    1. Klaas Vaak said on March 4, 2020 at 5:20 pm
      Reply

      @@: apply to Martin to become the moderator, so you can ban “bad” commenters to your heart’s delight. However, if Martin does not give you the job, perhaps it is to for you look and comment elsewhere.

      1. Jason said on March 5, 2020 at 12:56 am
        Reply

        @Klaas: No, that other commenter is right. The browser squabbles on this site have become really frustrating. There was always a certain degree of fanboyism, but in recent months I keep having to go through loooooong shouting matches between the same few people. It’s started to detract from the quality of Ghacks, which, after all, was always strongly linked to the quality of the comment section.

        I’m not saying I know what the solution is. It’s something Martin will have to think about though.

      2. Max3 said on March 5, 2020 at 4:38 pm
        Reply

        Right! I come here to learn something from people who know more than I do, not trudge through long back and forth >quote >quote >quotes nitpicking about what each other said. It’s like the old days of emails and endless requoting. Holy cow, stop it!!! If I want to read arguements I’ll go to Reddit or Facebook.

      3. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 9:28 am
        Reply

        @Max3: either read the comments that interest you or don’t read any. Whining and wailing will not fix YOUR problem.

      4. Klaas Vaak said on March 5, 2020 at 5:56 pm
        Reply

        @Jason: 1st off, that other commenter is right in your opinion and in certain others’ opinion, but not necessarily in everyone’s opinion.

        Now then, shouting matches can be frustrating, but it seems to me they are always linked to certain subjects, notably, though not exclusively, browsers. Browsers, like religion and politics, always release a lot of emotions, and very few people are able to channel those emotions into sensible discussions.

        Telling people to STFU will definitely NOT resolve the problem, if indeed it is a real problem. Martin could ban notorious shouters, although even that is not necessarily effective. Or he could stop publishing articles about “hot” subjects, such as browsers, but even that defeats the objective.

        No, in my opinion those who are fed up with the shouting matches will have to make a clear choice:
        * either they only read the article and ignore the comments section altogether, or
        * read the article and wade through the unpleasant comments to pick out the good ones, or
        * stop coming to this site.

        In any case, wailing and whining will definitely not do the trick of stopping shouting matches; in fact the wailing and whining is just as bad as the shouting matches, AFAIC. I don’t mind the shouting matches, and when I get fed up I just jump to the next comment. It really is as simple as that.

      5. 99 said on March 6, 2020 at 9:22 am
        Reply

        @ Klaasje Kwaad’s *clear choice*

        * either they only read the article and ignore the comments section altogether, or
        * read the article and wade through the unpleasant comments to pick out the good ones, or
        * stop coming to this site.

        … is not a *clear choice* my Dear!

        Your advices ignores the facts, that some obvious semi-professional trolls are clearly forcing upon other readers their typical tactics of spreading misinformation by:

        * kidnapping the threads

        * derailing the topics

        * spawning the same long winding copy&paste BS over and over again

        * attacking other commenters with absurd false accusations

        * notoriously ignore the facts and arguments of other commentators

        * spreading misinformations and creating false narratives

        * and so on and so on … ’till the bitter end of ghacks comment section

        All this is a clear sign of not being interested in any honest discussions and mutal exchange of informations but instead aggressively forcing their propaganda upon other readers by manipulating their views and bury their opinions under an avalanche of bullshit.

        Dear Mister Kwaakje

        Your advice is an outrageous attempt to tell other readers to shut up … and hypocritical directed towards the wrong fellow readers!

        Conclusion

        In a disgusting manner, a minority of typical bullshit trolls oppresses over and over again the right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas!

        R.I.P. ghacks.net comment section!

      6. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 9:34 am
        Reply

        @99: Professional trolls? You seem to know others’ earnings. LOL.
        Trolls? Yep, there are some, and it is obvious you’re the one leading the pack.
        You don’t like the comments here? Don’t read them or go somewhere else. Your trolling won’t change a thing. It IS a clear choice, it’s as simple as that. Take it or leave it.

      7. 99 said on March 6, 2020 at 12:44 pm
        Reply

        >>> obvious you’re the one leading the pack

        *.:。✿*゚Schmatz’゚・✿.。.:*Thanks for the ❧flowers!❧

        Btw. much telling timestamps:

        99 said on March 6, 2020 at 9:22 am

        Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 9:34 am

        12 minutes response time, 11 minutes slower than your record of 1 minute. A bit lame this time my Dear, isnt it?

      8. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 1:22 pm
        Reply

        @99

        Laughing out loud, troll-in-chief @99 describing himself while trying to describe others, not even noticing it. Seriously, all the things you’ve said can be applied to you 1:1, yet you still act like the self-righteous troll that you are. Your bitterness presumably comes from all the debates you’ve lost recently, not to mention the multiple BS postings of yours that others and myself have successfully debunked.

        The advice of @Klaas Vaak is the only sound one here so far.

        PS: If the gHacks comment section is dead, then why are you still here?

      9. 99 said on March 6, 2020 at 5:00 pm
        Reply

        >>>The advice of @Klaas Vaak is the only sound one here so far.

        go somewhere else

        A classical „geh doch nach drüben!“

        Once in West Germany, the call was expressed as a stereotypical response to critical questions, in order to avoid discussion and to accuse critics of sympathizing with GDR relations. By “over there” was meant the eastern zone or the territory of the GDR. In the GDR these sentences were sometimes used to silence critics.

        This is Your language of this totalist environment, introduced by you and your henchmans to this forum, characterized by this thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of any debats are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any comment thread.

      10. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 3:00 pm
        Reply

        @99: how ironic that as one of the commenters whining about mud slinging matches you use ad hominem attacks. Not surprising from an ouwe patat vreter.

  11. anona said on March 4, 2020 at 2:24 pm
    Reply

    I wish there was a good Gecko-based browser. I don’t want to keep supporting the Google/Chromium monopoly.

    – Firefox: Mozilla has become a far left extremist organisation
    – Waterfox: sold to an ad company
    – Palemoon: made by a furry
    – Seamonkey: I don’t want a web suite but only a browser

    1. Sebas said on March 4, 2020 at 4:37 pm
      Reply

      @anona Yes these are the same arguments for me regarding these browsers.

      If firefox would be more normal left and *inclusive* lol, I would reinstall it.

      Mark Zuckberg “acknowledged that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place”: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/10/zuckerberg-admits-silicon-valley-extremely-left-le/

    2. Klaas Vaak said on March 4, 2020 at 5:22 pm
      Reply

      @anona: how do you define afar left extremist browser?

      1. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 5:58 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        I think the whole discussion regarding politics is a bit silly when it comes to browsers. Because, by itself, the browser is not a political tool (which is probably what you wanted to express in your comment). You can potentially make it into a political tool by hardcoding a list of websites which users are not allowed to visit, or by changing internal algorithms in a way that does make it more likely for a user to visit certain websites. But as far as I know, the browsers themselves (any browser really) don’t do that. Search engine are being manipulated, but not the browsers themselves so far. Therefore, I don’t think it makes much sense to disqualify any given browser, as long as the browser itself doesn’t do anything political.

        That being said, of course the browser makers, the human beings behind the browsers, do have political opinions, and I used to blast Mozilla for funding communication networks primarily used by Antifa (RiseUp) very recently, since I don’t support any kind of political extremism, neither right-wing nor left-wing. However, does the political stance of the people at Mozilla disqualify Firefox as a tool / software? Nope.

        Personally, this is what I would consider to be a fair assessment, but I sometimes miss the same degree of fairness on part of the Mozilla fans. They do say that Brave is “right-wing” because Brendan Eich is, as one out of many people working at Brave, right-wing. When I ask them in how far Brave, and I mean the very software here, is right-wing, they can’t say. That’s because the browser itself is apolitical. What Brendan Eich is thinking privately doesn’t affect the product in any way, same goes for the people at Mozilla and Firefox. And I doubt that most users research the people behind any given software before deciding to use it, most don’t care.

        That being said, if the Mozilla fans insist on their stance that the political opinions of any given person behind any given product outright disqualify said product, even if the product itself is apolitical, then let them be served the same unfairness they treat others with, I say. That would only be just, albeit I refuse to do that, because as said: Disqualifying any apolitical product based on the political opinions of the person behind the product is a level of silliness I don’t want to sink to. It’s also a red warning sign of totalitarianism to try and intermingle everything with politics, even if it’s totally unrelated, and it’s also a sign of totalitarianism to explicitly seek out the political opinions of persons (who are not actual politicians) behind products en detail.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on March 5, 2020 at 6:03 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: thanks for a well-balanced reply that is sensible, logical, and acceptable. And I tend to adhere to the same principles as you, although, I will be honest now, there are very few instances where a dev’s known political opinion put me off his apolitical app. I know that is not fair, and, when you look at it objectively, it is even stupid to take such a stance. I admit, in some respects I do behave stupidly, unjustifiably so. Shhh, don’t tell anyone else ;-)

      3. Stan said on March 6, 2020 at 8:41 pm
        Reply

        Chris Beard left last year, MozCo have still not announced a replacement; almost three months later HRH Baker remains the Chairwoman and Interim Chief Executive Officer, would I be correct in thinking the toxic environment there has led to qualified applicants not wanting to go anywhere near the place?

  12. stefann said on March 4, 2020 at 2:29 pm
    Reply

    IT’S TIME TO PUT AN END TO THIS BATTLEGROUND gHacks HAS BECOME !

    I have nothing against informative comments, but these “fights” are stupid ! They have driven me to more or less not comment anymore.

    1. Sebas said on March 4, 2020 at 4:40 pm
      Reply

      @stefann I agree. I like Brave, I do have problems with Firefox, but things are becoming a bit obessive in my view.

      It is not decent to abuse Martin’s very open mind regarding censure. Please have some respect for him.

    2. Yuliya said on March 4, 2020 at 5:06 pm
      Reply

      I don’t think it’s a problem for people to express their opinion on a particular product/service/company, as long as it’s not being done in a way which attacks anyone personally.
      As for mozilla, I’d say all the heat they’re getting nowadays is well deserved after what they’ve done in 2018:
      https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/21/mozilla-wants-to-estimate-firefoxs-telemetry-off-population/

    3. Klaas Vaak said on March 4, 2020 at 5:24 pm
      Reply

      @stefann: could it be an idea for you to just read the article and not bother with reading the comments/battleground section?

      1. Jason said on March 5, 2020 at 1:02 am
        Reply

        @Klaas:

        No, that’s not a solution. 90% of the reason I visit Ghacks is to read informative comments that expand on points in an article. That’s the real value of this site. To lose that is to lose the reason for coming at all – which seems to be exactly what has started to happen. I’ve noticed that a lot of the old regulars (at least the ones I’ve known in the last 5 years) are either not commenting anymore or are commenting very occasionally.

        It’s unfortunate that this has happened, because Ghacks comments were always informative precisely because Martin has always minimized his interventions. Martin’s openness is being abused. Like I said in another response to one of your comments above, I really don’t know what the solution is.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 5:52 am
        Reply

        @Jason: I replied to you above effectively saying that, short of not writing about controversial subjects such as browsers anymore, there is no solution, but that the whining and wailing of others about this phenomenon will definitely not change anything.

        I agree with you that the comments section can often be an important additional source of information – I also read the comments section here for it, and have even picked up help for something I was stuck with.

        I do believe that those genuinely interested in this site will leave their comments despite some shouting matches. The reduced activity of the 5-year+ veterans may be for other reasons, such as disagreement with Martin agreeing to the Softonic take-over of this site.

    4. John Fenderson said on March 5, 2020 at 12:15 am
      Reply

      @stefann:

      I could not agree more strenuously. These exchanges are just childlike shouting matches that accomplish nothing aside from taking away from the value that gHacks provides.

      1. Iron Heart said on March 5, 2020 at 7:09 am
        Reply

        @Jason, John Fenderson

        First things first, I don’t even know who “Jason” is. At least I can’t remember him contributing anything worthwhile in recent times. I mean, who is this guy? Where does he derive his right from to decide who can comment and who cannot, when he has only appeared on gHacks just now? Strange.

        When it comes to @John Fenderson, I know that you regularly comment, but honestly I often scroll past your comments because they add nothing to the discussion most of the time. True story. Most of it is just answering the (oftentimes rhetoric) questions Martin raises at the end of all articles, or you saying why you use X product and why X product is great. I beg your pardon, but in how far do YOU contribute to the “value gHacks provides”? You are complaining about me supposedly not contributing, while you yourself have contributed little to nothing so far. At least I am (at least trying to) revealing the truth about a certain company which claims to be something it clearly isn’t.

      2. Jason said on March 5, 2020 at 1:36 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: I’ve been contributing on-and-off to Ghacks for several years. I usually lurk in the shadows and just read, but at any rate I’ve been here A LOT LONGER than you have. It takes quite some gall for you to attack me this way. I’m glad, however, that you recognized my criticism of recent commenters was partially directed at you.

      3. Iron Heart said on March 5, 2020 at 3:19 pm
        Reply

        @Jason

        Contrary to you guys @Jason, @John Fenderson, @stefann, I am all for free speech. That’s why I never demand that your drivel, pardon, I mean your “enormously interesting comments” of course, be deleted. You are doing the plain opposite.

        gHacks is owned by Martin Brinkmann, one of the most impartial and anti-censorship blog owners I know. He only intervenes if some kind of political extremism or outright offenses against basic human dignity are posted here, very seldom before that. He certainly won’t intervene because some teenagers or adults who never grew up demand it. Because if you were adults, you would just follow the principle “Don’t like it, don’t read it.”

        And consider this: gHacks is usually read by “tech people”, ranging from moderately interested persons all the way up to known experts. Most people here have an adblocker running, which means that gHacks earns no money with these people. gHacks is also a verified Brave publisher, and Brave users automatically contribute (unless they have changed the related setting, I haven’t) to the websites they spend the most time on, if the contributor accepts BAT, which Martin Brinkmann does. The point is, my presence and that of any other Brave user contributes to the blog from an economical perspective.

        Let’s say you leave like some petulant child would, then someone else who finds the conversations here mildly amusing will take your place, it’s as easy as that. gHacks can afford to lose you (even if you don’t block ads here your total contribution is peanuts), buddy, while any Brave user leaving this blog would be an actual financial loss. And before you complain “Life is so unfair etc.”: Nothing is stopping you from using Brave as well. But you won’t, as you want to have your cake and eat it, too, thus contributing nothing.

        Again, Martin Brinkmann is extremely impartial, he won’t delete your “enormously interesting comments”, but at the same time you should recognize from what kind of weak position you demand my removal / censorship be applied to me. Someone who likely contributes nothing to the upkeep the blog, commenting or even visiting no more than a few times… Back to the shadows, little friend.

      4. Klaas Vaak said on March 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: +1.

      5. John Fenderson said on March 5, 2020 at 11:53 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: “Contrary to you guys @Jason, @John Fenderson, @stefann, I am all for free speech.”

        Why did you include me in this list? I am all for free speech — including yours — and have never indicated otherwise. I think that your hyperbole may have gotten away from you here.

      6. John Fenderson said on March 5, 2020 at 11:50 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: “You are complaining about me supposedly not contributing”

        No, that’s not what I was complaining about. I was not complaining about you specifically (or solely). I was complaining about the fact that every time one of a handful of browsers is mentioned, a handful of angry people start fighting with each other, using the same weak, tired, and often incorrect arguments over and over. Those arguments not only add nothing to the site, but typically take value away from the site by diverting the discussion to something that wasn’t the point at all.

        I did not say, and don’t believe, that you never contribute anything of value. I’m merely saying that this perpetual holy war is pointless, distracting, and harms the site.

      7. Iron Heart said on March 6, 2020 at 11:29 am
        Reply

        @John Fenderson

        So, if I treated you unfairly I apologize of course. However, I think you need to look at the big picture. Read my first comment, not once did I mention the browser I use, be it Brave or Ungoogled Chromium or Firefox or whatever. Then, there did appear comments bashing Brave for whatever reason(?), and all I am doing is taking the outrageous bait of people like @Not Anonymous or @notanon. You are correct that the arguments are often “weak” and “incorrect”, that’s why I am trying to base my argument off credible sources. I am not pretending that I am free of error, just saying that I at least try to do my due diligence. Other commenters oftentimes have good or even very good points, too.

        But there is just too much misinformation spread especially about Brave here, coming from people who evidently don’t know what they are talking about. Debunking the oftentimes factually wrong and always reappearing comments is tiresome even to me. I’ve also noticed that there are many FF fans and outright fanboys here, who will senselessly bash any alternative if given the chance. Yet I am the one getting all the shit for debunking their misinformation, probably because I’ve angered the swarm. And note that I am oftentimes just being attacked for my basic opinion, much more often than for the number or style of my posts.

        I also believe that the whole browser debate is only a substitute discussion for bigger topics like privacy and freedom. For example, many people believe that by using Firefox they are by default more private and save the web from Google’s dominance. I disagree with that, pointing out the business relationship between Mozilla and Google and Firefox’s lacking (euphemism) privacy defaults. What appears to be just a discussion about browsers oftentimes concerns the beliefs of people in certain values, and in products they feel represent these values. I think this adds fuel and oftentimes vitriol to the discussion, where the topic of discussion (I mean’ it’s just browsers – lines of code) seemingly doesn’t warrant it.

      8. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 3:05 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: at the risk of being called your lapdog I would like to compliment you on a sensible, good reply to John Fenderson. John, by the way, is, IMO, also one of the more sensible, and indeed knowledgeable commenters. He may not always go into technical detail, but when challenged he can respond aptly.

        Just my 2 cents worth.

  13. Yuliya said on March 4, 2020 at 4:37 pm
    Reply

    This is what a privacy-respecting browser looks like? https://i.imgur.com/Frdk4WG.png
    Embarrassing, honestly.
    My Chromium runs all the time in incognito, blocks all 3rd party cookies, and my OS blocks connections towards most known trackers (a much more comprehensive list than what mozilla’s disconnect crap is).

    1. Yuliya said on March 4, 2020 at 4:48 pm
      Reply

      Chromium out of the box: https://i.imgur.com/DYKpoE1.png

      1. Klaas Vaak said on March 4, 2020 at 5:25 pm
        Reply

        @Yuliya: +1 for Chromium, +2 for the Ungoogled version ;-)

  14. John Fenderson said on March 4, 2020 at 5:57 pm
    Reply

    This is an excellent move. Good work, Mozilla!

  15. Brit said on March 4, 2020 at 8:04 pm
    Reply

    Thanks Martin!

  16. angry said on March 4, 2020 at 9:08 pm
    Reply

    If mozilla really wanted to protect her users from spying with cookies, it would activate third-party isolation by default, or at least, they wouldn’t hide it.
    It’s totally ridiculous that users have to spend so much time configuring and installing third party extensions to have any privacy at all.

  17. Ray said on March 4, 2020 at 9:31 pm
    Reply

    Incognito mode only gives a false sense of security. You’d be better running regular mode with a bunch of clearing extensions instead.

  18. Ray said on March 4, 2020 at 9:34 pm
    Reply

    You can clear the cache now and it’s very simple to do so. You don’t have to wait until Firefox 75! If you don’t want to use an extension, just hit CTRL+SHIFT+DEL and delete it that way.

  19. Iron Heart said on March 4, 2020 at 9:36 pm
    Reply

    I meant *Brave* will disappear within the next 5 years given its <1 % market share, while Firefox continues to prove its value.

    1. Iron Heart said on March 5, 2020 at 6:37 am
      Reply

      @Fake Iron Heart

      The real Iron Heart, which is me, knows his stats. He knows that the Firefox market share is declining while Brave’s continues to rise. Therefore, the real Iron Heart would never write such a stupid thing.

      Nice try anyway.

  20. The Skeleton of Maurice De Crecy said on March 4, 2020 at 10:37 pm
    Reply

    @ Iron Heart Are you paid to defend Brave online?

    I have understood you love Brave so much, but WAIT you won’t convince me. My index finger was just broken, due to someone’s excessive posts. Looong posts that only promote our so much beloved Brave.

    Now give me a break, or give me a Brave version without that silly BAT part. I’m waiting………

    1. Iron Heart said on March 5, 2020 at 6:50 am
      Reply

      @The Skeleton of Maurice De Crecy

      > Are you paid to defend Brave online?

      No. It is easily proven that Brave is more private than Firefox out of the box:

      https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/25/study-finds-brave-to-be-the-most-private-browser/

      Mozilla claims to care about user privacy, while doing the opposite. Don’t believe me? Well. you can check out the range of connections Firefox establishes with tools like WireShark.

      If you wonder why I have to write so much about Brave, it’s because there is a whole lot of bullshit being said about Brave here.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/

      > I have understood you love Brave so much, but WAIT you won’t convince me.

      It is neither my goal nor my job to convince anyone of anything here. I am just trying to describe the situation the way I see it. You don’t have to believe me, and if you have the energy, do your own research independently, or not…

      > Now give me a break, or give me a Brave version without that silly BAT part.

      Not sure I understand? Brave Rewards are opt-in, i.e. they are disabled by default in Brave. In the Brave settings, one can also remove the Brave Rewards icon from the URL bar. I heard that the Dissenter browser is a Brave fork that entirely removes Brave Rewards from the codebase. I wouldn’t use Dissenter under any circumstances, though. No need for a far-right “free” comment section here.

  21. @ said on March 4, 2020 at 11:43 pm
    Reply

    Shut up, all of you, with your squabbles about browsers!!! Every Single Thread! You’re probably just copy-and-pasting your arguments. Take your verbal assaults somewhere else. Comment on the article, or better yet, don’t comment at all and let there be peace.

    1. Klaas Vaak said on March 5, 2020 at 6:09 pm
      Reply

      @@: could it be an idea for you to just read the article and not bother with reading the comments/battleground section?

    2. King Crismon Vocalist said on March 5, 2020 at 8:09 pm
      Reply

      @ “@” Look man, I just say what I believe. I even read all of Iron Heart posts. I think everyone here is a user of some kind of browsers. Actually I use K-Meleon, Mypal and lynx. Yes, I am in the group of the ones who left mozilla.

      Also, @, there’s people that can delete comments. Ask to them to become a moderator if you need it.

      Bad name, in every case.

      1. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 9:35 am
        Reply

        @King Crismon Vocalist: +1.

  22. Jason said on March 5, 2020 at 1:14 am
    Reply

    Excellent idea, but setting the time to 30 days is just barely better than not having the feature at all. They should set it to 24 hours by default and give the user an option to delete immediately when closing the last tab of a domain…. That would actually have some teeth.

  23. anonymous said on March 5, 2020 at 1:58 am
    Reply

    How do you look at each cookie individually set by a site in FireFox? This used to be easy to do.

  24. Jeff said on March 5, 2020 at 2:47 am
    Reply

    Open source Chromium is built by Google engineers with unknown binary blobs added-in. Hmmm…

    Martin and Gorhill have both issued red-flag warnings about Google planning to severely restrict ad-blocking. In software development Chrome/Chromium loss of major (privacy) functionality is called a deprecated design.

    Imagine the worlds largest monopoly advertiser wants to force its ads on everyone. Ridiculous!
    I’m so angry living in this survival of the fittest society with zero privacy yet total convenience. Someone has to pay the $220,000 average Google salary.

    Your choice is either being fed brain-dead addictive, zero-patience, short-fused, instant demand convenience or fighting daily to maintain your privacy, sanity and humanity. This duel takes time and effort battling against the smartest engineers who project awesome digital power and control over society.

    Lets see…what are the privacy benefits of NOT enabling JavaScript on this site?

    1. Fauszt said on March 5, 2020 at 8:20 am
      Reply

      @Jeff
      >Open source Chromium is built by Google engineers with unknown binary blobs added-in. Hmmm…

      “Open source Chromium” with unknown binary blobs…..how is it possible to include unknown binary blobs in a open source project? Please tell me I’m very interested.
      So it seems you don’t even know the difference between Chromium and Chrome.
      Maybe this site will enlighten you a bit:
      https://chromium.woolyss.com/

      Best regards,
      Fauszt

      1. Klaas Vaak said on March 5, 2020 at 1:24 pm
        Reply

        @Faust: ouch !! +1

  25. Jeff said on March 5, 2020 at 2:53 am
    Reply

    Open source Chromium is built by G*ogle engineers with unknown binary blobs added-in. Hmmm…

    Martin and Gorhill have both issued red-flag warnings about G*ogle planning to severely restrict ad-blocking. In software development Chrome/Chromium loss of major (privacy) functionality is called a deprecated design.

    Imagine the worlds largest monopoly advertiser wants to force its ads on everyone. Ridiculous!
    I’m so angry living in this survival of the fittest society with zero privacy yet total convenience. Someone has to pay the $220,000 average G*ogle salary.

    Your choice is either being fed brain-dead addictive, zero-patience, short-fused, instant demand convenience or fighting daily to maintain your privacy, sanity and humanity. This duel takes time and effort battling against the smartest engineers who project awesome digital power and control over society.

    Lets see…what are the privacy benefits of NOT enabling JavaScript on this site?
    Answer it doesn’t matter anymore as the g-tagmanager is now always mining

  26. ULBoom said on March 5, 2020 at 5:12 am
    Reply

    Cannot understand why anyone would save cookies, history or site data at browser close unless it’s Chromia since that stuff can’t be deleted until it’s parsed on a restart.

    Privacy is best addressed outside a browser vs. trying to follow the nebulous machinations of browser companies. With all the privacy garbage they claim to be introducing, in a few months browser privacy will be 100% since ad revenue will no longer matter.

    Not!

    There was a time when senseless strawman browser bickering was shut down. “Far left extremist?” WTF??? GHack’s archives contain the site’s useful info.

    Browsers are free, use whichever you want.

  27. Anonymous said on March 5, 2020 at 8:31 am
    Reply

    @Iron Heart,how do you know that Brave is increasing in market share.There are no stats on it.
    Someone said on the brave forum that they don’t have their own user agent,thereby it doesn’t show
    as brave but chrome or firefox.

    Firefox continues to maintain 8 or 9 percent market share,it is not declining yet.

    1. Iron Heart said on March 5, 2020 at 8:54 am
      Reply

      @Anonymous

      > how do you know that Brave is increasing in market share.

      https://cryptobriefing.com/brave-surpasses-10-million-monthly-active-users/

      https://learnbonds.com/news/brave-becomes-the-most-downloaded-web-browser-in-japan/

      There is more than that, but I think from these sources alone it’s already clear that Brave is growing at a good rate.

      > There are no stats on it. Someone said on the brave forum that they don’t have their own user agent,thereby it doesn’t show as brave but chrome or firefox.

      Brave identifies as Chrome, it has the Chrome user agent, therefore it won’t show up in any statistics using the user agent as their reference. Same goes for Vivaldi btw.

      However, the Brave update server gets roughly as many requests as Brave has users, so this can still be measured in raw numbers. On mobile, another good indicator are Google Play Store or Apple App Store rankings.

      > Firefox continues to maintain 8 or 9 percent market share,it is not declining yet.

      Not sure I understand? Firefox used to have 30%(!) market share in its heyday, it has been in steady decline for years now.

      https://twitter.com/hikaru1106/status/1112847295039430656

    2. Stan said on March 5, 2020 at 2:25 pm
      Reply

      “Firefox continues to maintain 8 or 9 percent market share,it is not declining yet.”

      Down to 7.75% according to netmarketshare.com, Edge will likely overtake it next month…

  28. Anonymous said on March 5, 2020 at 12:27 pm
    Reply

    What about Localstorage per site etc?

  29. Jeff said on March 5, 2020 at 7:10 pm
    Reply

    When I investigated Chromium a couple years ago an esteemed software developer declined to use Chromium because of pre-compiled binaries. Therein lies the risk. Reproducible builds are a set of software development practices that create an independently-verifiable path from source to binary code.
    https://reproducible-builds.org/

    Binary Downloads for Ungoogled-chromium
    IMPORTANT: These binaries are provided by anyone who are willing to build and submit them. Because these binaries are not necessarily reproducible, authenticity cannot be guaranteed. (the releases may be ranfge from perfect to spyware)
    https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/

    The Debian repository has spyware Chromium. I would never install it.
    The ungoogled-chromium for Debian is by author Easton. He is trying to drop ‘remote modules’ from chroumium.googlesource.com https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/pull/946.

    For privacy and reproduceability, external dependencies to Google (or anywhere else) are NOT allowed. The entire build process must be totally local using source code and scripts.

    This explains why the official Ungoogled-chromium repository only contains the patched source. Ha! Ha!
    But no builds. Why?
    Because you meed to depend upon Google code/scripts for their complex Chromium build process. Cough cough!

    1. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 3:10 pm
      Reply

      @Jeff:
      > the releases may be range from perfect to spyware

      Yet UC is open source, so how does spyware fit in there?

  30. Klaas Vaak said on March 6, 2020 at 8:11 pm
    Reply

    Shut up, all of you, with your squabbles about browsers!!! Every Single Thread! You’re probably just copy-and-pasting your arguments. Take your verbal assaults somewhere else. Comment on the article, or better yet, don’t comment at all and let there be peace.

    1. Klaas Vaak said on March 7, 2020 at 1:50 pm
      Reply

      Sorry pal, you’re not Klaas Vaak. You tried your filthy trick with Iron Heart, and he set you right. I will not even try it, all my other comments here prove you’re a fraud.

      You and your ilk are poisoning this website, and you’re trying to project your filth onto commenters who make more of a contribution here than you guys ever will or can.

  31. Jeff said on March 7, 2020 at 3:25 pm
    Reply

    Behold, here is the astonishing list of Chromium services blocked in the new Microsoft browser:
    Safe browsing, Speech input, Nearby messages, Google Pay, Link Doctor, Drive API, Ad blocking, Chrome OS hardware id, User data sync, Device registration, Spellcheck, Google Maps Time zone, Suggest, Google Cloud Storage, Translate, Cloud Print, SmartLock, Google DNS, Form Fill, Supervised Profiles, Push Notifications, Address Format, WebStore, Network Location, Extension Store, Network Time, Maps Geolocation, Favicon service, Google Now, Google Cloud Messaging, Single sign-on (Gaia), Content Hash Fetcher, Flighting Service, Component Updater Service, RAPPORT service, Chrome OS monitor calibration, Chrome OS device management, Android app password sync, Offline Page Service Feedback, Domain Reliability Monitoring, Data Reduction Proxy, Chrome Cleanup, Developer Tools Remote, Debugging, iOS Promotion Service, One Google Bar Download, Brand Code Configuration Fetcher, WebRTC Logging, Captive Portal Service.
    Of course MS then replaces with in its own data collection. A commenter states ‘if Ad Block+ and/or UBlock Origin isn’t to be allowed in the new MS Browser… it’s a NO-GO from the very start.’
    https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/09/microsoft-edge-google-features-disabled/

    Its very difficult for ANYONE to build a Chromium branch cutting out all the propitiatory linking of REMOTE Google build dependencies (read code and scripts).

    Every Ungoogle Chromium source of builds is different and CANNOT be compared.

    The Google browsers are monsters which use far greater OS services than other browsers.
    Good software design reduces the number of external dependencies. The highly intelligent Google engineers went to the opposite extreme while still be able to advertise ‘open source’.
    It usually take the public 10-20 years to figure out these deceptive practices.

    That Google had to build its own Chromium sandbox is testament to this fact.
    Next Google is reducing the effectiveness of ad-blockers in its browsers.

    The bottom line is while the nominal source code may be open source, the dependencies to services listed above are NOT. This is a massive amount of proprietary source code and explains why the ungoolgedchromium author is only able to release application patched source code. Having insider development knowledge would be most beneficial, which could explain the anonymous binary releases.

    In a first for Linux, the Firefox based GNU icecat browser is superior to anything from Windows and Android. As documented in my first post, it is patched and built by the same highly principled GNU organization.

    I’ve learned to never fight any large data-miner on its own (unstated) terms. Just chop the tentacles off and look elsewhere (ok, yes there are compromises for family members).

    1. Klaas Vaak said on March 8, 2020 at 10:41 am
      Reply

      @Jeff: Google does not pretend nor advertise its browser is opens source, only Chromium is.
      As for UC anonymous binary releases, what are you talking about? UC IS open source, so everything can be verified. So please explain your claim of anonymous binaries that keep repeating without any explanation.

    2. Klaas Vaak said on March 8, 2020 at 10:41 am
      Reply

      @Jeff: Google does not pretend nor advertise its browser is opens source, only Chromium is.
      As for UC anonymous binary releases, what are you talking about? UC IS open source, so everything can be verified. So please explain your claim of anonymous binaries that keep repeating without any explanation.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.