6 ms·

True, but this case contains a little more complexity. Namely: 1. Chrome, as the dominant browser, drives developer behaviour (devs need to change their websit

True, but this case contains a little more complexity. Namely: 1. Chrome, as the dominant browser, drives developer behaviour (devs need to change their websites when Chrome breaks compat). Firefox doesn't have this luxury, so some features like this must necessarily be lead by Chrome in the monopolistic browser world we live in. 2. Referers allow websites to individually track users better, which is bad for user privacy if you are concerned about entities such as Facebook, etc. tracking you. However, those entities are Google's competitors; for Google, Chrome does the tracking, so they have no need of the Referer. Removing it is "good" for user privacy w.r.t. Google's competitors, and simultaneously good for Google (disadvantaging such competitors).

3grdlurker 6y ago
It seems that the solution to the “complex” scenario you’re describing is simple: use Firefox instead of Chrome.
- toxik 6y ago
  It’s only simple in the sense that it takes few words to say, but then world peace is also simple: just stop having wars.
  - boston_clone 6y ago
    Do you really think the two are in any way comparable? It's a web browser.
    - guipsp 6y ago
      It's an analogy.
- k_sze 6y ago
  Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I myself religiously use Firefox by default and only use Chrome if I bump into some websites don’t work in Firefox. But my kid’s teachers often send links that my kid needs to use for school work. And a lot of them are educational websites that don’t work in Firefox. I can’t be home all day to provide tech support. So having Firefox as the default browser is simply a no-go. Guess what wins, between Chrome and Firefox?
  - Zardoz84 6y ago
    > Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I read a lot of people saying this, but I use Firefox and I don't run on this issues, except when I land by accident on some weird dark pages (mainly porn pages) As developer, I develop on Firefox, and sometimes do a quick test on Chromiun/Edge/Chrome to see if something it's break or bugged on Chromiun/Edge/Chrome web engines.
- vkou 6y ago
  Literally nothing about the scenario described above will change, except that it will give Firefox the option to make the change before Chrome does.
behnamoh 6y ago
Your answer takes Google's POV into account (the "why"), but the GP was mentioning the end result of firms' intentions (the "what"). In other words, it doesn't matter why google needs to or wants to implement some features. What matters is that those features are implemented in Chrome and yet they don't get praised on HN. But if Mozilla adds the same features, HN folks go crazy about it. I'm a happy Firefox user too, but I don't want to believe that Firefox is the only browser that cares about user privacy.
- lucideer 6y ago
  > I don't want to believe that Firefox is the only browser that cares about user privacy. I don't either, but I don't believe HN users praising Chrome is going to help with that situation...
- ysavir 6y ago
  I think the parent comment's point is that Firefox is worth celebrating because they're making this (and other changes) with no ulterior motive other than championing user privacy. But with Chrome, the user privacy improvement is a biproduct of Google making profit-oriented decisions, and not the focal point of their change. I'll happily celebrate Google making a privacy-oriented change that's actually intended and not a bi-product, but this isn't such a case.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    We can guess Google's motivation but no source.
pkaye 6y ago
> Removing it is "good" for user privacy w.r.t. Google's competitors, and simultaneously good for Google (disadvantaging such competitors). And how does Mozilla make money?
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Google paying it. Out of Chrome and Firefox, one is one big level of indirection further away from Google's influence than the other.
  - derefr 6y ago
    No. Mozilla Corp is a separate entity from the Mozilla Foundation, and Google pays Mozilla Corp. (The arrangement with Google is exactly why Mozilla Corp is a distinct thing from the Mozilla Foundation: it means profits to Mozilla Corp can't influence the Mozilla Foundation.) Mozilla Foundation is purely a donation-fed nonprofit, and most things you associate with "Mozilla" are made by the Mozilla Foundation. In fact, even Firefox itself — the open source project — is made by the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Corp is just a company that employs engineers to work on Firefox. (I.e. their job is to be ordinary FOSS contributors to the project.) Those engineers might have a profit motive to do things Mozilla Corp investors/shareholders like, but that's fine, because those engineers mostly aren't part of the Firefox steering committee. The Firefox steering committee (along with all other Mozilla projects) is composed of people who are employed by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation; and/or FOSS people external to Mozilla as a whole. (ETA: fixed the names. I originally called Mozilla Corp "Firefox Corp" — and it really basically is, as Mozilla Corp doesn't employ people to work on anything other than Firefox. IMHO "Firefox Corp" would be a strictly-better name for it.)
    - sm4rk0 6y ago
      You're close, but there's no "Firefox Corp". From Wikipedia: "Mozilla [...] is a free software community founded in 1998 by members of Netscape. [...] The community is supported institutionally by the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation and its tax-paying subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation."
ehsankia 6y ago
> for Google, Chrome does the tracking, so they have no need of the Referer. Source?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
henearkr 6y ago
Afaik, Chrome does not the tracking. Or do you have some source? In the event that such behavior would occur, it can be detected by sniffing your packets, and people would very soon speak about it.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Someone shared this with me earlier today, funny enough [1]. They track you quite thoroughly and link the collected data, including browsing history, to your identity. It's actually much worse than just browsing data, though [2]. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/20/stop-using-google-chrome-on-apple-iphone-12-pro-max-ipad-and-macbook-pro/?sh=4f55df404d08 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/20/stop-usin... 2. https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/6055073241c87157bd23c338/960x0.jpg?fit=scale https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/6055073241c...
  - henearkr 6y ago
    I think it's the classic "help enhance user experience" opt-out (usually prompted when you first open Chrome) that was weirdly not done here. It's accessible even afterwards on chrome://settings/security
- lucideer 6y ago
  Chrome does a lot of tracking. This seems obvious enough that I would reply by asking: do you have a source demonstrating that it does not track? However there are many many many sources out there documenting Chrome's comprehensive tracking: - Google's own ToS is probably too long to read, but it lists ways in which you consent to be tracked by the browser - Google's proposals to the W3C for adding new ad-tracking tech to web standards go into detail on Chrome's own mechanisms for doing this tracking as a PoC example [0] - Chrome isn't technically available on iOS; they are forced to use Safari's engine under the hood of iOS Chrome, which restricts in some ways the amount of tracking the browser can do. Despite this, the list of data tracked by iOS Chrome is listed on the AppStore download page and IT IS LONG. Finally, you mention packet sniffing. In actual fact, direct packet sniffing has been made non-trivial by cert-pinning. This doesn't however prevent checking the frequency and destination of app phone-home requests, and yes, Chrome does it a lot. You can see this yourself if you use common user firewall tools such as LittleSnitch/LuLu/OpenSnitch/etc. [0] https://github.com/WICG/floc#qualifying-users-for-whom-a-cohort-will-be-logged-with-their-sync-data https://github.com/WICG/floc#qualifying-users-for-whom-a-coh...

3grdlurker 6y ago

It seems that the solution to the “complex” scenario you’re describing is simple: use Firefox instead of Chrome.

toxik 6y ago
It’s only simple in the sense that it takes few words to say, but then world peace is also simple: just stop having wars.
- boston_clone 6y ago
  Do you really think the two are in any way comparable? It's a web browser.
  - guipsp 6y ago
    It's an analogy.
k_sze 6y ago
Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I myself religiously use Firefox by default and only use Chrome if I bump into some websites don’t work in Firefox. But my kid’s teachers often send links that my kid needs to use for school work. And a lot of them are educational websites that don’t work in Firefox. I can’t be home all day to provide tech support. So having Firefox as the default browser is simply a no-go. Guess what wins, between Chrome and Firefox?
- Zardoz84 6y ago
  > Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I read a lot of people saying this, but I use Firefox and I don't run on this issues, except when I land by accident on some weird dark pages (mainly porn pages) As developer, I develop on Firefox, and sometimes do a quick test on Chromiun/Edge/Chrome to see if something it's break or bugged on Chromiun/Edge/Chrome web engines.
vkou 6y ago
Literally nothing about the scenario described above will change, except that it will give Firefox the option to make the change before Chrome does.

behnamoh 6y ago

Your answer takes Google's POV into account (the "why"), but the GP was mentioning the end result of firms' intentions (the "what"). In other words, it doesn't matter why google needs to or wants to implement some features. What matters is that those features are implemented in Chrome and yet they don't get praised on HN. But if Mozilla adds the same features, HN folks go crazy about it. I'm a happy Firefox user too, but I don't want to believe that Firefox is the only browser that cares about user privacy.

lucideer 6y ago
> I don't want to believe that Firefox is the only browser that cares about user privacy. I don't either, but I don't believe HN users praising Chrome is going to help with that situation...
ysavir 6y ago
I think the parent comment's point is that Firefox is worth celebrating because they're making this (and other changes) with no ulterior motive other than championing user privacy. But with Chrome, the user privacy improvement is a biproduct of Google making profit-oriented decisions, and not the focal point of their change. I'll happily celebrate Google making a privacy-oriented change that's actually intended and not a bi-product, but this isn't such a case.
- fomine3 6y ago
  We can guess Google's motivation but no source.

pkaye 6y ago

> Removing it is "good" for user privacy w.r.t. Google's competitors, and simultaneously good for Google (disadvantaging such competitors). And how does Mozilla make money?

wizzwizz4 6y ago
Google paying it. Out of Chrome and Firefox, one is one big level of indirection further away from Google's influence than the other.
- derefr 6y ago
  No. Mozilla Corp is a separate entity from the Mozilla Foundation, and Google pays Mozilla Corp. (The arrangement with Google is exactly why Mozilla Corp is a distinct thing from the Mozilla Foundation: it means profits to Mozilla Corp can't influence the Mozilla Foundation.) Mozilla Foundation is purely a donation-fed nonprofit, and most things you associate with "Mozilla" are made by the Mozilla Foundation. In fact, even Firefox itself — the open source project — is made by the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Corp is just a company that employs engineers to work on Firefox. (I.e. their job is to be ordinary FOSS contributors to the project.) Those engineers might have a profit motive to do things Mozilla Corp investors/shareholders like, but that's fine, because those engineers mostly aren't part of the Firefox steering committee. The Firefox steering committee (along with all other Mozilla projects) is composed of people who are employed by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation; and/or FOSS people external to Mozilla as a whole. (ETA: fixed the names. I originally called Mozilla Corp "Firefox Corp" — and it really basically is, as Mozilla Corp doesn't employ people to work on anything other than Firefox. IMHO "Firefox Corp" would be a strictly-better name for it.)
  - sm4rk0 6y ago
    You're close, but there's no "Firefox Corp". From Wikipedia: "Mozilla [...] is a free software community founded in 1998 by members of Netscape. [...] The community is supported institutionally by the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation and its tax-paying subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation."

ehsankia 6y ago

> for Google, Chrome does the tracking, so they have no need of the Referer. Source?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

henearkr 6y ago

Afaik, Chrome does not the tracking. Or do you have some source? In the event that such behavior would occur, it can be detected by sniffing your packets, and people would very soon speak about it.

DangitBobby 6y ago
Someone shared this with me earlier today, funny enough [1]. They track you quite thoroughly and link the collected data, including browsing history, to your identity. It's actually much worse than just browsing data, though [2]. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/20/stop-using-google-chrome-on-apple-iphone-12-pro-max-ipad-and-macbook-pro/?sh=4f55df404d08 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/20/stop-usin... 2. https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/6055073241c87157bd23c338/960x0.jpg?fit=scale https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/6055073241c...
- henearkr 6y ago
  I think it's the classic "help enhance user experience" opt-out (usually prompted when you first open Chrome) that was weirdly not done here. It's accessible even afterwards on chrome://settings/security
lucideer 6y ago
Chrome does a lot of tracking. This seems obvious enough that I would reply by asking: do you have a source demonstrating that it does not track? However there are many many many sources out there documenting Chrome's comprehensive tracking: - Google's own ToS is probably too long to read, but it lists ways in which you consent to be tracked by the browser - Google's proposals to the W3C for adding new ad-tracking tech to web standards go into detail on Chrome's own mechanisms for doing this tracking as a PoC example [0] - Chrome isn't technically available on iOS; they are forced to use Safari's engine under the hood of iOS Chrome, which restricts in some ways the amount of tracking the browser can do. Despite this, the list of data tracked by iOS Chrome is listed on the AppStore download page and IT IS LONG. Finally, you mention packet sniffing. In actual fact, direct packet sniffing has been made non-trivial by cert-pinning. This doesn't however prevent checking the frequency and destination of app phone-home requests, and yes, Chrome does it a lot. You can see this yourself if you use common user firewall tools such as LittleSnitch/LuLu/OpenSnitch/etc. [0] https://github.com/WICG/floc#qualifying-users-for-whom-a-cohort-will-be-logged-with-their-sync-data https://github.com/WICG/floc#qualifying-users-for-whom-a-coh...