3 ms·
Yep. One ungracious explanation could be that Google is penalising Firefox users, but a more likely reason is that Firefox successfully blocks some of the infor
by robin_reala 8y ago
Yep. One ungracious explanation could be that Google is penalising Firefox users, but a more likely reason is that Firefox successfully blocks some of the information leakage from the browser that Google uses to decide whether a browser user is a bot or a human. I’ve no doubt that Chrome is very secure, but I do doubt that Google does much to stop it sending data back to Google controlled domains.
- JohnFen 8y ago"I’ve no doubt that Chrome is very secure, but I do doubt that Google does much to stop it sending data back to Google controlled domains." Either Chrome is sending data home, or it is "very secure". It can't be both.
- robin_reala 8y agoWell, Chrome comes from Google, so if you don’t trust Google to store your data I’d recommend not using the browser at all. I certainly don’t (apart from for unlogged-in development testing), but if you do then there shouldn’t be a problem.
- JohnFen 8y agoI certainly don't trust Google, and I don't use any Google products. But that's a bit beside the point. What I was trying to get at is that if data is being sent from a product to the manufacturer without your knowledge and consent, then that is a data breach no matter how trustworthy the collector of the data is. Such products cannot reasonably be called "very secure" in a blanket way. Saying something like "very secure against outside attackers" would be more correct as, to use the Chrome example, Google is an inside attacker.