4 ms·

Anyone monitoring their connections has already noticed this long ago, I know I have. It is not a bug. If privacy is a concern you wouldn't (or at least shouldn

Anyone monitoring their connections has already noticed this long ago, I know I have. It is not a bug. If privacy is a concern you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be using chromium in the first place.

copsarebastards 11y ago
> If privacy is a concern you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be using chromium in the first place. Privacy is a concern for everyone, whether they understand that or not.
- bduerst 11y ago
  So is oxygen, but I'm not going to carry a scuba tank with me everywhere. Just when I'm diving or doing something where it is equally important. Same reason you don't use TOR on a virtual machine over a drone mesh network to starbucks for the majority of your internet browsing.
  - mborsuk 11y ago
    but then people know when your diving, if you carry all the time they won't know
    - bduerst 11y ago
      All they'll see is the diver's flag, just as all they'll see is a random computer on TOR at starbucks. Likewise, if you use the gear all the time, people will figure out that you're probably a scuba diver.
  - jalfresi 11y ago
    Yes but the expectation is that people around you aren't pumping poisonous fumes into the AC.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    You can say anything with faulty analogies. The fault in your analogy is that you seem to think that oxygen is somehow less important in situations where it's easily available. You say, "Just when I'm diving or doing something where it is equally important." But oxygen is always equally important. It's just that in most situations it's easily available to you: all you have to do is inhale. Your analogy isn't even internally correct, but even if it were, it still doesn't prove anything about privacy, because privacy isn't easily available, at least not over technological channels. Privacy isn't oxygen, so accurate claims about oxygen don't imply anything about privacy at all. Analogies are for explanation, not evidence. If you can't make an argument without an analogy, you're may want to consider that you're wrong.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Analogies are inexact by semantic definition, and that doesn't make then "faulty". Privacy is readily available through https, two factor OAuth, etc. just like oxygen generally is. What's your point?
      - copsarebastards 11y ago
        > Analogies are inexact by semantic definition, and that doesn't make then "faulty". Well, it makes them useless as evidence. An argument by analogy simply isn't a valid argument. Don't you remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads? > Privacy is readily available through https, two factor OAuth, etc. HTTPS is broken by privileged man-in-the-middle attacks (attacks where the attacker has key signing power) and downgrade attacks. And that is when it's even available (it isn't always). And even against attackers with less power, it only provides privacy for what you send over the wire, not who you send it to. And finally, this all assumes that you're sending your data to an entity which won't simply sell it to whoever is willing to pay a few bucks (an uneducated user might think, for example, that data sent through GMail is private). I'm not even gonna touch "two factor OAuth"; I'm not sure what kind of privacy you even think that provides. In short, you clearly have no knowledge about what does and does not provide privacy. It would behoove you to not make claims on topics you are ignorant of.
josteink 11y ago
Things like this just reinforces my impression that Chromium & Chrome is slowly crossing the line from being privacy-invading to actual spyware. And yes. Obviously I don't use them.
lucb1e 11y ago
Why? I thought Chromium was supposed to be the open source (libre) version of Google Chrome. It shouldn't do anything "evil". I guess you would have to change the search engine and perhaps disable update checking if you plan to do that yourself, but other than that... I personally prefer Firefox regardless, but that's not because of paranoia reasons (I just like it better with about:config and the available add-ons and the way the url bar works and... just usability reasons).

copsarebastards 11y ago

> If privacy is a concern you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be using chromium in the first place. Privacy is a concern for everyone, whether they understand that or not.

bduerst 11y ago
So is oxygen, but I'm not going to carry a scuba tank with me everywhere. Just when I'm diving or doing something where it is equally important. Same reason you don't use TOR on a virtual machine over a drone mesh network to starbucks for the majority of your internet browsing.
- mborsuk 11y ago
  but then people know when your diving, if you carry all the time they won't know
  - bduerst 11y ago
    All they'll see is the diver's flag, just as all they'll see is a random computer on TOR at starbucks. Likewise, if you use the gear all the time, people will figure out that you're probably a scuba diver.
- jalfresi 11y ago
  Yes but the expectation is that people around you aren't pumping poisonous fumes into the AC.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  You can say anything with faulty analogies. The fault in your analogy is that you seem to think that oxygen is somehow less important in situations where it's easily available. You say, "Just when I'm diving or doing something where it is equally important." But oxygen is always equally important. It's just that in most situations it's easily available to you: all you have to do is inhale. Your analogy isn't even internally correct, but even if it were, it still doesn't prove anything about privacy, because privacy isn't easily available, at least not over technological channels. Privacy isn't oxygen, so accurate claims about oxygen don't imply anything about privacy at all. Analogies are for explanation, not evidence. If you can't make an argument without an analogy, you're may want to consider that you're wrong.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Analogies are inexact by semantic definition, and that doesn't make then "faulty". Privacy is readily available through https, two factor OAuth, etc. just like oxygen generally is. What's your point?
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      > Analogies are inexact by semantic definition, and that doesn't make then "faulty". Well, it makes them useless as evidence. An argument by analogy simply isn't a valid argument. Don't you remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads? > Privacy is readily available through https, two factor OAuth, etc. HTTPS is broken by privileged man-in-the-middle attacks (attacks where the attacker has key signing power) and downgrade attacks. And that is when it's even available (it isn't always). And even against attackers with less power, it only provides privacy for what you send over the wire, not who you send it to. And finally, this all assumes that you're sending your data to an entity which won't simply sell it to whoever is willing to pay a few bucks (an uneducated user might think, for example, that data sent through GMail is private). I'm not even gonna touch "two factor OAuth"; I'm not sure what kind of privacy you even think that provides. In short, you clearly have no knowledge about what does and does not provide privacy. It would behoove you to not make claims on topics you are ignorant of.

josteink 11y ago

Things like this just reinforces my impression that Chromium & Chrome is slowly crossing the line from being privacy-invading to actual spyware. And yes. Obviously I don't use them.

lucb1e 11y ago

Why? I thought Chromium was supposed to be the open source (libre) version of Google Chrome. It shouldn't do anything "evil". I guess you would have to change the search engine and perhaps disable update checking if you plan to do that yourself, but other than that... I personally prefer Firefox regardless, but that's not because of paranoia reasons (I just like it better with about:config and the available add-ons and the way the url bar works and... just usability reasons).