Google is rolling back SameSite Cookie changes temporarily
Google introduced the new SameSite cookie policy in Chrome 80 Stable which it released in February 2020 to the public. The policy implements changes to the handling of cookies that the company announced in May 2019 for the first time.
Basically, what SameSite does is limit cookie access to first-party access by default. Web developers get options to change the handling by explicitly marking cookies for access in third-party contexts. Third-party cookies will only be sent over HTTPS connections in that case to further improve privacy and security.
Google published an announcement on the Chromium website on Friday in which it revealed that it made the decision to roll back the SameSite cookie changes in Chrome. The company started to implement the changes in February with the release of Chrome 80. According to Google's announcement, the rollback is necessary because of "extraordinary global circumstances due to Covid-19". Google wants to make sure that websites that provide essential services function as designed and that is why SameSite is rolled back and put on hold for the time being.
However in light of the extraordinary global circumstances due to COVID-19, we are temporarily rolling back the enforcement of SameSite cookie labeling, starting today. While most of the web ecosystem was prepared for this change, we want to ensure stability for websites providing essential services including banking, online groceries, government services and healthcare that facilitate our daily life during this time. As we roll back enforcement, organizations, users and sites should see no disruption.
Developers should monitor the Same Site updates page on the Chromium website as well as the Chromium blog for announcements on when SameSite is going to be introduced in Chrome again.
Google announced other Chrome-related changes recently. The company postponed releases, decided to focus on security improvements only, and plans to skip Chrome 82 entirely but release Chrome 83 early because of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Mozilla, maker of Firefox, had to rollback a change in Firefox as well because of the current global situation. The organization decided to re-enable TLS 1.0 and 1.1 in the Firefox web browser due to (some) government sites still requiring the aging protocols and Google postponing the change in the company's Chrome web browser. Microsoft postponed the disabling of TLS 1.0 and 1.1 in the company's browsers to the second half of 2020 as well.
Lol. After 10 years of much internet use, and engaging in many comment threads on different websites, I learned fairly early that ‘trolls’, yes trolls, seemed to be quite easily seen by 1. the inordinate number of posts they make on any particular thread 2. they mostly just engage in endless personal ‘fencing matches’ with others 3. they hardly ever make a specific comment directly about the topic subject itself 4. the adage of ‘don’t feed the troll’ is about the only solution. If no one responds, they get bored and go silent.
There is no ‘winning an argument’ with a troll.
Searching ‘how to spot/deal with a troll’ on the net will help, even if just a refresher.
Btw, yes I know there’s nothing in this post about the topic. That’s because I know nothing about the topic, but I do know about trolls and knowing how to spot a troll helps everyone (except the troll lol).
@ beefcake
thanks for your comment. It’s been fun browsing the “How to spot a Troll” :)
@ beefcake
+ 1 for the info.
@beefcake
For real though, your extremely thinly veiled attack against me (“the inordinate number of posts they make on any particular thread”) does not even work very well. Buddy, I did make an on topic post right there and originally wanted to leave it at that:
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/04/google-is-rolling-back-samesite-cookie-changes-temporarily/#comment-4459052
But then some some people decided that I deserve being attacked based on a post as harmless as this one, which forced me to defend myself against such attacks many times over, which of course has to be inherently off-topic. So much for “inordinate number of posts” and “off-topic” and “personal fencing matches”, Mr. Troll Hunter. The next time you go on a troll hunt, make sure that your glasses are polished.
Not that I would have to justify myself before you, quite the contrary (you are the one attacking me after all), just wanted to debunk your nonsensical post. I do know quite a bit about nonsensical posts by now.
Could someone Please tell me what i should set the Top 3 Flags when searching for Samesite? They’re the Top 3 Flags in the Picture in this article. What should i Enable, Disable or Leave Default?
Thank You in advance.
Well, if you want to enable SameSite, you enable the first and third. The second just adds an option to Chrome IIRC and is not required. If you don’t want SameSite, you don’t really have to do anything right now as this is the temporary default.
@Martin Brinkman – i block all third party cookies. Does this mean Samesite flags are useless to me ?
Also, i use Containers and Third Party isolation on Firefox. Basically i’m not sure if Samesite is similar to Third Party isolation or not.
Yes that is right.
@When enforced, SameSite cookies also need to be transmitted via HTTPS. This is not a requirement of FF’s third-party isolation.
@ Martin Brinkmann
This is off topic and addressed to you personally.
Notanon opened the comments.
What happened next was typical of what is happening on your site. Iron Heart jumps in with a comment about FF doing things incorrectly, etc, etc, while Chrome, which he/she does NOT use, is the good guy and did it properly.
You are allowing Iron Heart, Yuliya, Klaas Vaak, Stan, etc. to criticisie other posters with impunity and get away with it.
Effectively, they are monopolising your comment section.
I would not mind if the comments were short and to the point. Iron Heart’s comments especially go on and on while he/she pontificates about the superiority of ungoogled Chromium, his/her superior knowledge, and the ignorance of other posters.
If another poster, see Bill above, suggests using a proper registration system, Iron Heart jumps in immediately to say “how dare you suggest my right to free speech should be interfered with”. Read Iron Heart’s response to Bill.
About six years ago, when I first started to read your articles, there was a LOT of input from knowledgeable people with helpful tips and links to potentially useful articles and software. Examples are Windows Firewall Control, Search Everything, Firefox user.js, ublock origin.
That rarely happens now because many of these people no longer comment.
Why you allow Yuliya’s comment about Firefox to stand without challenging him/her for proof of what data was lost. He/she has made this comment at least five times to my knowledge without qualifying how important the lost data was.
“I used Firefox in the past, and trusted them, until they stole my data in 2018, and for that I will make sure to let everyone know about my horrible experience with the piece of garbage that is moz://a . . . yuck, even typing the name of this company makes me sick.”
So, in the future, I will check if you have any interesting articles with useful links as in the past. I live in hope…
@Gary D, I agree with your analysis but unfortunately I’m afraid it is not in a site administrator’s prerogatives to ban a comment on the basis it’d be a spoiler.
Personally I have a line ready to be used in a gHacks dedicated user style,
/* REMOVE THE COMMENT SECTION
#comments {display:none !important;} */
I’m more than once tempted to un-comment it (I never was until recently after perhaps a 10 year or so gHacks reader), yet interesting, pertinent comments still exist. The only solution IMO is to avoid the pains in the neck systematically by never addressing nor responding to their logorrhoea.
“You are allowing Iron Heart, Yuliya, Klaas Vaak, Stan, etc. to criticisie other posters with impunity and get away with it.”
He allows them just as much to speak/criticize other people/things as he does everybody else. He isn’t your Daddy who will come to rescue when you see something online that you don’t like or agree with.
I’m honestly just as much annoyed with people like Iron Heart or Yuliya who are obsessed with Mozilla = Bad as im with people like you or Bill who whine about them and want to Police there opinion.
“Effectively, they are monopolising your comment section.”
Oh really? I didn’t know you weren’t able to answer or speak your mind…(even tho you just did exactly that).
“If another poster, see Bill above, suggests using a proper registration system, Iron Heart jumps in immediately to say “how dare you suggest my right to free speech should be interfered withâ€. Read Iron Heart’s response to Bill. ”
I agree that he didn’t have to say:
“> Right now people have to be rounded up like cattle to be kept in check.”
But you seem to gloss over his core argument (see below).
Bill said on April 5, 2020 at 12:47 pm:
“also has a Like/Dislike/Report system in place, people with multiple infractions, warnings and reports can get banned and it will be made harder for people to just post like that.”
Iron Heart said on April 5, 2020 at 3:03 pm:
“I am always suspicious of people who are quick to report and denounce others just for voicing their opinion, as it shows a manifest disdain for free speech. And this, in turn, is usually not a trait of democratically minded…”
I rather have a freely accessible and (mostly) uncensored comment section with a few “Trolls” than a tightly regulated and edited echo chamber without them.
@DropZz
I agree with most of your comment. But I seriously can’t let this stand:
> a few “Trollsâ€
I don’t see in how far my posts are trolling. My original comment in this thread just tried to clarify what I think is an error of judgement of @notanon. I tried to write this one in a matter of fact manner. The rest of my comments are just responses to people who feel that it’s necessary to attack me aggressively, and I didn’t plan to write those at all.
And I am not on the “Mozilla = Bad” train as much as you might think. They are not any worse than other data grabbers like Microsoft or Google or Opera or… The problem is, they market themselves as the privacy protecting “good guys”, and with sentiment I take issue, as it is provably untrue. I just won’t let this stand like that. The problem is, people are easily influenced by marketing, and if they don’t care enough to read further into any given topic, their ignorance can be sky high. Then, if someone exposes the marketing for what it is – marketing with no substance behind it – they become aggressive based on wounded pride (nobody easily admits having been fooled). Maybe that’s just how humans are meant to operate, I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t create an enlightened discussion. You know how many actual discussions without useless ad hominems take place here? Very little, and that’s just sad.
@Iron Heart
“I don’t see in how far my posts are trolling.”
I personaly dont think its Trolling but some are thinking that thats why i wrote in ” “.
“They are not any worse than other data grabbers like Microsoft or Google or Opera or…”
I disagree that the “as bad or even worse” than the Mentioned Company.
“The problem is, they market themselves as the privacy protecting “good guysâ€, and with sentiment I take issue, as it is provably untrue.”
I can see why that would be an issue and agree.
“marketing with no substance behind it”
I disagree that there is “no substance” at all but its true that Mozilla has taken multiple actions that endangered users Privacy (e.g Cliqz integration). Nevertheless there is still a big difference between Firefox that had several privacy issues and a browser like Google Chrome that is build upon spying on users without even trying to change that.
“Then, if someone exposes the marketing for what it is – marketing with no substance behind it – they become aggressive based on wounded pride”
People know that there are issues they just disagree with your conclusion.
I would also like to live in a world where a 100% Privacy friendly Browser had enough resources and users to stay relevant and up to date but there just is none (no, using a chromium based browser is NO option. e.g we don’t want to support Googles Browser Monopoly).
“(nobody easily admits having been fooled).”
That comment right here is a good example why people react the way they are.
Most People aren’t “fooled” and you are not enlighten for seeing obvious issues.
Being less condescending will definitely help people to understand and listen to you.
@DropZz: Thanks for the argument. That was better than what I can put in words (I seriously sucked at that).
Although I gotta say I’m kinda conflicted with your opinion on unmoderated vs moderated comment space. I mean, admittedly I’m probably one of the troll here (although honestly I’m just tired of the people I mentioned, one of the “fooled” you said, I actually like to do constructive comment on other threads if possible), but on this point I think tightly moderated space is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the moderators do their best to stay absolutely neutral. A tall order, admittedly, but it might work. Still, I guess for here your option might be better.
@Unknown person
“I think tightly moderated space is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the moderators do their best to stay absolutely neutral.”
>Moderating Comments
>Being “neutral”
Pick one because moderating is quite literal the opposite of being neutral.
See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/neutral
“not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others”
Change war to discussion and you have your answer.
Demanding Martin or anybody else to be neutral when its about opinions is pointless and imo impossible. Which means i rather have no moderation at all than “imperfect” or too restrictive moderation.
I don’t see any reason to ban people except when they add nothing to the discussion (which Iron Heart or Yuliya absolutely do even if you thing they are wrong) or insult/threaten other people.
It is vital in any (healthy) discussion to have people who disagree or challenge your views. Without them we would never change our perspective or develop further e.g still use IE :D
@DropZz: I mean moderators being only there to strictly enforce rules, but doing their best to not take a side. I mean, given natural human bias it’s going to be hard as hell but I do think that it’s not impossible to have a curated discussion space while allowing various sides to be able to express themselves. Still, not going to be easy for that.
@DropZz
I agree with your comment, a few points:
> I disagree that there is “no substance†at all but its true that Mozilla has taken multiple actions that endangered users Privacy (e.g Cliqz integration). Nevertheless there is still a big difference between Firefox that had several privacy issues and a browser like Google Chrome that is build upon spying on users without even trying to change that.
It is absolutely true that Chrome is given out by Google with the intention to grab user data, no doubt. However, we mustn’t forget that Mozilla is being funded by Google. And this shows. I mean, take a look at Firefox’s privacy settings, they are bad if you do not change them (keep in mind that very few people actually do change them). One of the most egregious examples was this:
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bf8ppu/mozilla_firefox_to_enable_hyperlink_ping_tracking/
Mozilla giving advertisers like Google yet another tracking method at hand, the lazy excuse being “if they don’t do it this way, they will find another”. Yes, I believe that. I think it doesn’t make much difference whether you use Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox (default settings).
> I would also like to live in a world where a 100% Privacy friendly Browser had enough resources and users to stay relevant and up to date but there just is none (no, using a chromium based browser is NO option. e.g we don’t want to support Googles Browser Monopoly).
Well, I do agree that a project / company the size of Mozilla needs funding. However, there are many ways to achieve funding. They could, for example, have other business branches under their wing which could finance Firefox. They also could choose a source of funding that is not their “competitor” (Google). I agree that they need funding, I disagree that it has to be Google of all possible options.
As for Chromium-based browsers, some of them are provably more privacy-respecting than Firefox out of the box, Ungoogled Chromium, Iridium, Bromite, Brave come to mind. Yes, you would be using a Chromium-based browser, but Chromium is open source, if it overtakes the market (it already has) and Google goes bad, someone will fork it if the situation becomes bad enough. That wasn’t possible with closed source Internet Explorer back in the day. I think drawing any parallel here is at least somewhat misplaced. And then, even though the willingness to prevent a monopoly is good per se, you also have to consider what the competitors actually do. I don’t think it makes much difference when Google grabs your data with Chrome, if Mozilla enables them to do the same thing via lousy privacy settings, much like it makes no difference to replace a browser directly controlled by Google with one indirectly controlled by Google. IMHO, Mozilla is compromised and needs to go away so that a truly independent alternative has a chance to live. If something like that never comes to fruition, I would still prefer Ungoogled Chromium with a stellar track record over Firefox, to be honest with you.
> Most People aren’t “fooled†and you are not enlighten for seeing obvious issues. Being less condescending will definitely help people to understand and listen to you.
Sorry to say, I have seen way too much fanboyism and ignorance in the face of facts to believe that. People mainly believe in the marketing, if someone exposes it, they will come at said someone. Believe it or not, my comments used to be more light hearted – made no difference. And if I happen to be condescending, it is a result of how some people can’t behave themselves, and weariness caused by ignorance. And no, I am not “enlightened” for knowing Mozilla’s track record, I just know. I would like to have an “enlightened discussion” of all parties regardless, but then again, fanboyism, fanaticism, ignorance prevents this.
@Gary D and Martin
What Gary said, Martin.
Back in the day I used to enjoy and learn from the comments here almost as much I did from the articles they comment on. Back in the day I could and did spend hours almost every other day on this site, learning from Martin & co, and from people in the comments. Sadly after 2 mins of reading the comments on almost any articles my faith in humanity
drops another 10% and I have to bail.
Even sadder I now realize I come to Ghacks less and less each month. At this rate I will probably be fed up and cease all visits here soon. Too bad that a poorly managed comments section is allowed to drive loyal readers away.
See around, maybe, maybe Not.
@Gary D
> What happened next was typical of what is happening on your site. Iron Heart jumps in with a comment about FF doing things incorrectly, etc, etc, while Chrome, which he/she does NOT use, is the good guy and did it properly.
I just explained why @notanon completely missed the point of my prior criticism of Firefox. And in this case, yes, Chrome did it correctly while Firefox used its built-in backdoor. That’s provably true. That you believe me to think Chrome always does the right thing (it really doesn’t) is a non-sequitur.
> You are allowing Iron Heart, Yuliya, Klaas Vaak, Stan, etc. to criticisie other posters with impunity and get away with it.
There is no law that grants any single person the right not to be criticized, as far as I’m aware. If you are afraid of criticism, then this says more about your position than it does about mine.
> Effectively, they are monopolising your comment section.
You know what, originally I planned to post exactly one comment here, my first one. The one which clarified, in a matter of fact manner, in how far @notanon missed the point. The rest of my comments here were posted because I had to deal with aggressive attacks against me, attacks that were in no way warranted by the content of my first comment. And I also have to deal with the usual whimsical complaints like yours, long story short, I planned to post one (1) comment here clarifying a critical error of judgement, the rest of my comments were forced by others.
> superiority of ungoogled Chromium
It’s the only browser which establishes zero (0) unsolicited requests by default, of course it’s superior in terms of privacy. What is the point of debate here?
> his/her superior knowledge
Replace “superior knowledge” with “lack of ignorance”, and you would be closer to the truth. Not buying into every sort of marketing is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing because it allows me to be informed, it’s a curse because the people buying into any kind of marketing right away will come at me with pitchforks and scythes for bursting their bubble.
> and the ignorance of other posters.
While nobody is free of error, some posters are extremely ignorant indeed, and feel threatened by someone exposing their ignorance. These kinds of people cause approx. 80% of my postings, especially if they happen to attack me. The actual number of my comments exceeds the planned one exponentially most of time, and I would rather have it that the reason for this increase disappears.
> If another poster, see Bill above, suggests using a proper registration system, Iron Heart jumps in immediately to say “how dare you suggest my right to free speech should be interfered withâ€. Read Iron Heart’s response to Bill.
The actual reason why I replied to Bill, as opposed to your freely made up one, was that Bill suggested that human beings should be “rounded up like cattle”, which I think is a clear-cut offense against basic human dignity. That you take no issue with that, that you even fail to mention it, shows what kind of character hides within “Gary D”. He ignores the real offense that caused me to reply, and replaces it with an imagined one as to make me appear worse than I am. Dishonorable lies won’t get you very far.
Bill also mourns that gHacks doesn’t offer a downvote system, he would like to downvote me into oblivion. He also takes issue with the fact that gHacks doesn’t enable telltale behavior by not offering a reporting system. Bill hopes that, if he and his colleagues downvote and report me enough, this will get me banned. Classical case of a majority terrorizing a minority. Downvotes can be caused by a myriad of things, maybe just disagreement or you having a bad day, this is not a solid basis for a ban. And to what end does Bill even suggest this, other than to satisfy his little inside telltale? It’s not like Martin is inactive here, if he intended to make use of his rights as the admin, he would have. He doesn’t need pesky telltales attempting to force his hand.
In the rest of your comment, you make the “pre-Iron Heart gHacks” – if something like this even exists as its own entity – out to be happy utopia. I beg your pardon, I’ve read the blog long before I started to comment, and the browser articles were a back-and-forth battlefield with mostly unnecessary squabbles long before I appeared, and as for myself, again I tell you that I would rather not have it this way. Reduce your nonsense attacks and complaints, and I will have to comment less.
@Tired of all this crap
“Please, Martin, we can’t deal with opinions that are outside of our own bubble!!! We are legion, if you don’t get rid of opinions different from ours, we will leave. We are two people, Gary D and myself, you will lose two most valuable readers if you don’t ban differing opinions!
You want to coerce Martin into banning me using your superior numbers (two people…), if Martin has anything resembling a backbone, this won’t work. There is no reason for banning me, especially not if he doesn’t ban the comment of @Bill, a comment which suggests that human beings should be “rounded up like cattle”. If that doesn’t earn @Bill a ban here, I don’t see how my comparatively harmless posts could possibly earn me a ban. If you want me banned but are OK with @Bill, then this is just you having a broken moral compass and extreme double standards. Nothing more.
This is exactly why you should not get information directly from governments.
They can’t even setup a web server properly and now we have to adjust to the stupids and to their stupidity.
They don’t give a sh1-t about user’s security at all. Security is the last thing they want for you.
They want to decipher, de-anonymize and monitor visitors in real-time on all services.
Most of them if not all won’t give you trustworthy info about the real situations. All they care about is their made-up numbers in the statistics that can be shown at election’s day.
Turn off the TV&radio that they control too and leave your cell phone at home if you leave your apartment.
Support the independent journalism.
Gee,talk about copy cats.They roll back something just like Firefox.
I’ve always had, over some twenty years, 3rd-party cookies blocked on Firefox (as well as on other browsers), I’ve surfed and traveled over the seven seas and have, never, I emphasize on NEVER, encountered the slightest problem. From there on Google’s explanation leaves me stunned.
@notanon True. The level of immaturity, bashing, and trolling by several people that frequent this site is staggering and has resulted in me rarely even getting past the first one or two comments.
As soon as I see the names “Iron Heart”, “Yuliya”, or “Klaas Vaak”, I simply stop reading immediately, and close the tab.
It’s sad that a few bad apples spoil it for everyone else.
“Bill”, have you nothing more positive to do with your time than continually harassing people to defend a spyware business ? This is becoming boring.
@Bill,
Blame the owner of the website for using such a poor and lazy commenting system where anyone can input whatever name they want and post comments with ease. If there is a DISQUS implemented or a separate commenting system which requires a master account and takes a while to verify, also has a Like/Dislike/Report system in place, people with multiple infractions, warnings and reports can get banned and it will be made harder for people to just post like that.
The current lazy and pathetic commenting system is a relic from the days of yore (2004-2005) when people were more civil, less mentally retarded and less insane. Right now people have to be rounded up like cattle to be kept in check.
@Bill
I am always suspicious of people who are quick to report and denounce others just for voicing their opinion, as it shows a manifest disdain for free speech. And this, in turn, is usually not a trait of democratically minded…
> Right now people have to be rounded up like cattle to be kept in check.
…people? Never mind. Your understanding of democracy seems to be of North Korean flavor. Your opinion that any human being should be “rounded up like cattle” is an offense against basic human dignity. But then, I am sure if you get “rounded up like cattle” some day (hopefully never), you will be among the first to point at your basic human rights all of a sudden.
Go away, your text is abhorrent to read.
@Bill
Even though you have stopped reading my comments, you are yet to stop complaining about them… Why is that, I wonder? You don’t know the content of my posts under this article, you just assume they must be bad because I wrote them.
Furthermore, I don’t remember ever having seen a “Bill” here. Seems like people who never post something themselves or are completely new here want to have regulars sacked from the comment section. Perhaps a bit less entitlement will do the trick, maybe that will convince Martin to finally censor comments for no other reason than presenting a different point of view.
So everyone bashes Firefox for the TLS rollback, but when Chrome decides to do the same with SameSite cookies, then … crickets???
It’s completely unfair the level of hatred some people level on Firefox, but Chrome gets a pass every single time.
SMH.
Regarding people who yell (factually or metaphorically) my old man used to say “They don’t know better, people don’t change, don’t bother, avoid them” whilst mom would say “People are more than their behavior, and they do change, never avoid anyone”. As years passed I got to realize that IMO dad was right. Behaving accordingly doesn’t or shouldn’t mean we consider ourselves superior but only that loud and aggressive persons are a vexation to the spirit and that we’d better use our time and efforts for constructive debates.
Interacting with all can lead to clashes, avoiding can lead to communitarianism and even sectarianism, not to mention far worse. But is anything worth losing time when not life itself when mixed in a clash? Personally I’ll avoid daring a definitive answer and argue a nervous background tied to a considerable fatigue, that of debating about peanuts when the topic is worth a gentleman’s debate.
With a bit of imagination we’d have a gigantic hall with a guide who’d explain to the visitors the layout :
“On your left the clash room, with its ring where the latest two kick and box and behind a wide area all dedicated to fight and brawl, also known as the social networks”.
“On your right, a haven of distinguished, educated gentlemen who debate calmly about given topics”.
Life.
Because some people like Yuliya and Iron Heart are [Editor: stay polite please] *** who at this point turns into basically hater who just can’t stop hating because that’s their entire existence.
I honestly don’t get why they have to post those in EVERY Firefox thread. It’s like they have absolutely nothing better to do other than trying to justify their own hatred.
Not saying that there aren’t criticisms of Mozilla, but there’s a difference between just criticism and utter obsession with proving that they’re spawn of Satan even though they’re doing thing like what others does (like this for instance).
@Unknown person
Now I am already “spawn of Satan”, lol. Who offers more?
And “hatred”, if you think what I say is hatred, it is abundantly clear that you were never confronted with real hatred. The only thing I did so far in this thread, other than replying to your hyperbolic comment, was to point out why I think notanon’s assertions are missing the point. Pure hatred, obviously.
Martin isn’t a cricket.
See, people hate Firefox, because at one point of time it was the best. Then the developers turned it into a piece of trash.
Chrome has always been the same … mostly. Just lately they announced they will start controlling what people can and cannot download, as well as limiting ad-blocking capabilities. and that also sucks a lot. I’ve long stopped using Chrome and moved to other Chromium-based browsers.
If those forks can’t bypass what Chrome is doing then it’s going to be big trouble for people like me. I don’t know which browser will I use then.
I’m being realistic here, not hating on Firefox for the sake of hating on something just for exercise.
Not many people who visit gHacks use Chrome, I guess. I don’t.
I used Firefox in the past, and trusted them, until they stole my data in 2018, and for that I will make sure to let everyone know about my horrible experience with the piece of garbage that is moz://a . . . yuck, even typing the name of this company makes me sick.
How did you determine your data was stolen???
I have discovered a hidden addon mozilla has installed remotely on my computer, without any of my consent or my knowledge, despite me explicitely opting out of telemetry and tests via about config.
It has been described in this article: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/21/mozilla-wants-to-estimate-firefoxs-telemetry-off-population/
That addon was aggressively being pushed to my system even after I had it removed via an external program, or even on a fresh install, even in a VM.
@notanon
Sadly, you didn’t understand the criticism leveled of Firefox in this case at all. It wasn’t criticized that Mozilla reenabled insecure protocols to maximize web compatibility during the Covid-19 crisis, the criticism was that they did so using methods that circumvented the standard update functionality of Firefox. They did use the Normandy pref rollout for it, and could also have used Firefox Experiments if they had wanted to. Both methods can change the basic behavior of the browser (and in case of the FF Experiments even insert new code remotely) without user knowledge or approval. It’s basically Mozilla’s built-in backdoor that covers even those users who have disabled the regular Firefox application updates for a reason(!).
Google used the standard update routine of the browser to implement this change, as it should be. Make sure you understand the point of the discussion before posting.
@Iron Heart be like: https://i.imgur.com/KSIhsP5.gif