6 ms·

Eric Lawrence (PM on Edge, previously on Chrome, previously author of fiddler) showing screenshots of documentation that explains all that, and saying it's been

Eric Lawrence (PM on Edge, previously on Chrome, previously author of fiddler) showing screenshots of documentation that explains all that, and saying it's been documented this way for 14 years: https://twitter.com/ericlaw/status/1152933704198758401 https://twitter.com/ericlaw/status/1152933704198758401

jammygit 7y ago
...and for 14 years no ordinary user has understood what those default settings do, instead assuming “their software provider wouldn’t do that...”
- arijun 7y ago
  I think you're making a big assumption that ordinary users care if Microsoft knows what URLs they visit--how many of them use blockers or another technology to opt out of e.g. Facebook tracking?
  - Elpomm 7y ago
    Agreed, the average user simply does not care about privacy to that degree. FaceApp is yet another example. On the bright side, most of the tools we need to "cover up" are available to us. You can't ask for more than freedom of choice, I suppose.
  - amelius 7y ago
    That doesn't make it any better, though. Most people don't care what's in their food exactly, but that doesn't mean the producer has no responsibility.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Ordinary users don't know what a URL even is. But they do assume every site they visit isn't being logged by Microsoft, much like they assume their car's manufacturer isn't recording the places they drive to using GPS. "Users don't care" is such an intellectually dishonest argument when users aren't technical enough to understand the subject.
    - dgzl 7y ago
      Maybe we should differentiate "users understand and don't care" against "users don't understand and don't care". On one hand, a TOS usually describes privacy implications. On the other hand, there's no accountability that a user has understood or even read the TOS. Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print?
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        > Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print? Unequivocally, yes. Even if someone hypothetically had enough time to read every TOS they've agreed to I would venture to guess the average user wouldn't be able to comprehend most of the terms[1] anyway. Disclosure documents are written by lawyers (corporate CYA) for lawyers (regulators, plaintiff's counsel, judges). The law, however, disagrees with me entirely. [1] Edit to clarify I mean "terms" as in the terms of the agreement
        dgzl 7y ago
        Delegating privacy rights feels like delegating monetary rights. As in, negotiating contracts for payments. This is coming from the perspective of a simple person trying to understand this complexity. Anytime I sign complex and impactful contracts, it's usually done in person with physical paper and a general understanding between both parties. An online agreement feels like scam artist's work, only after we've realized the value of our personal data. Maybe we're giving too much away at the notice of typed words? We're essentially giving away resource because we didn't realize the importance of it.
      - craftinator 7y ago
        This needs to include the class of users who'd don't care because they don't understand. If they knew, they'd be upset too.
    - DannyBee 7y ago
      [citation needed] Most users probably don't assume anything, it doesn't even enter the lists of concerns or cares they have or ever would. It's not that they don't understand the subject, they simply do not give a crap one way or the other. Random family in the US or elsewhere simply does not give a crap about things like this, no matter how much you want them to. It's not ignorance, and the most intellectually dishonest arguments are really the argument here - "If people knew more about the subject or could know more, they'd care!". If they knew as much as you did, they still wouldn't care.
  - tareqak 7y ago
    Let’s take a step back here, and ask a few questions. 1) Is it possible to care about something that you don’t understand? 2) Is it possible to care about something whose existence you aren’t aware of? I personally don’t think anyone can have a meaningful discussion about this issue without answering and agreeing on the answers to at least those two questions I ask above.
- janbporterb 7y ago
  I am all for bashing bad privacy options, but from the linked tweet at least, this IS off by default. I can certainly see enterprise scenarios where this feature is very useful for security reasons. Did I miss some context? Edit: oh, this is in addition to the Mirror stuff. Yea this should never be a thing.
pacifika 7y ago
Can’t it just send a hash of the domain and of the full url for checking?
- notafrog 7y ago
  I'm guessing a single hash could be problematic for detections based on the domain for example. But this could be circumvented by sending hashed parts of the URL. For example they could hash the domain, path and query separately.
  - roca 7y ago
    Sending a hash of the URL or individual parts of the URL is problematic because the server can easily execute a dictionary attack to identify those parts in most cases. The "Google Safe Browsing Update API" (used by Firefox, Chrome, Safari and others) solved this a long time ago. In that protocol, the browser hashes the URL, sends a short prefix of the hash to the server, and receives a list of hashes for the URLs that should be blocked. A huge number of valid URLs all hash to each prefix and the server does not know which one the user has visited. Also, the client caches the list of hash prefixes for which the block list is non-empty, to avoid unnecessary fetches of empty lists, which further improves privacy and reduces response time. Also, the client doesn't send any kind of user ID token to the server.
gsnedders 7y ago
(Also on the IE team before leaving to work full-time on Fiddler. Pretty sure he was on the IE team 14 years ago.)
GrayShade 7y ago
Telemetry is also documented to collect your browsing history at the Full level (which is the default, I think), but everyone here focuses on SmartScreen instead: From https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement: Browser activity, including browsing history and search terms, in Microsoft browsers (Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer).

jammygit 7y ago

...and for 14 years no ordinary user has understood what those default settings do, instead assuming “their software provider wouldn’t do that...”

arijun 7y ago
I think you're making a big assumption that ordinary users care if Microsoft knows what URLs they visit--how many of them use blockers or another technology to opt out of e.g. Facebook tracking?
- Elpomm 7y ago
  Agreed, the average user simply does not care about privacy to that degree. FaceApp is yet another example. On the bright side, most of the tools we need to "cover up" are available to us. You can't ask for more than freedom of choice, I suppose.
- amelius 7y ago
  That doesn't make it any better, though. Most people don't care what's in their food exactly, but that doesn't mean the producer has no responsibility.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Ordinary users don't know what a URL even is. But they do assume every site they visit isn't being logged by Microsoft, much like they assume their car's manufacturer isn't recording the places they drive to using GPS. "Users don't care" is such an intellectually dishonest argument when users aren't technical enough to understand the subject.
  - dgzl 7y ago
    Maybe we should differentiate "users understand and don't care" against "users don't understand and don't care". On one hand, a TOS usually describes privacy implications. On the other hand, there's no accountability that a user has understood or even read the TOS. Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print?
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      > Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print? Unequivocally, yes. Even if someone hypothetically had enough time to read every TOS they've agreed to I would venture to guess the average user wouldn't be able to comprehend most of the terms[1] anyway. Disclosure documents are written by lawyers (corporate CYA) for lawyers (regulators, plaintiff's counsel, judges). The law, however, disagrees with me entirely. [1] Edit to clarify I mean "terms" as in the terms of the agreement
      - dgzl 7y ago
        Delegating privacy rights feels like delegating monetary rights. As in, negotiating contracts for payments. This is coming from the perspective of a simple person trying to understand this complexity. Anytime I sign complex and impactful contracts, it's usually done in person with physical paper and a general understanding between both parties. An online agreement feels like scam artist's work, only after we've realized the value of our personal data. Maybe we're giving too much away at the notice of typed words? We're essentially giving away resource because we didn't realize the importance of it.
    - craftinator 7y ago
      This needs to include the class of users who'd don't care because they don't understand. If they knew, they'd be upset too.
  - DannyBee 7y ago
    [citation needed] Most users probably don't assume anything, it doesn't even enter the lists of concerns or cares they have or ever would. It's not that they don't understand the subject, they simply do not give a crap one way or the other. Random family in the US or elsewhere simply does not give a crap about things like this, no matter how much you want them to. It's not ignorance, and the most intellectually dishonest arguments are really the argument here - "If people knew more about the subject or could know more, they'd care!". If they knew as much as you did, they still wouldn't care.
- tareqak 7y ago
  Let’s take a step back here, and ask a few questions. 1) Is it possible to care about something that you don’t understand? 2) Is it possible to care about something whose existence you aren’t aware of? I personally don’t think anyone can have a meaningful discussion about this issue without answering and agreeing on the answers to at least those two questions I ask above.
janbporterb 7y ago
I am all for bashing bad privacy options, but from the linked tweet at least, this IS off by default. I can certainly see enterprise scenarios where this feature is very useful for security reasons. Did I miss some context? Edit: oh, this is in addition to the Mirror stuff. Yea this should never be a thing.

pacifika 7y ago

Can’t it just send a hash of the domain and of the full url for checking?

notafrog 7y ago
I'm guessing a single hash could be problematic for detections based on the domain for example. But this could be circumvented by sending hashed parts of the URL. For example they could hash the domain, path and query separately.
- roca 7y ago
  Sending a hash of the URL or individual parts of the URL is problematic because the server can easily execute a dictionary attack to identify those parts in most cases. The "Google Safe Browsing Update API" (used by Firefox, Chrome, Safari and others) solved this a long time ago. In that protocol, the browser hashes the URL, sends a short prefix of the hash to the server, and receives a list of hashes for the URLs that should be blocked. A huge number of valid URLs all hash to each prefix and the server does not know which one the user has visited. Also, the client caches the list of hash prefixes for which the block list is non-empty, to avoid unnecessary fetches of empty lists, which further improves privacy and reduces response time. Also, the client doesn't send any kind of user ID token to the server.

gsnedders 7y ago

(Also on the IE team before leaving to work full-time on Fiddler. Pretty sure he was on the IE team 14 years ago.)

GrayShade 7y ago

Telemetry is also documented to collect your browsing history at the Full level (which is the default, I think), but everyone here focuses on SmartScreen instead: From https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement: Browser activity, including browsing history and search terms, in Microsoft browsers (Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer).