12 ms·

If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

79 points by mhb 6y ago

nickthemagicman 6y ago
Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions. It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a less polished browser.
- franklyt 6y ago
  Ghostery? Owned by Cliqz? Seems a bit questionable.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Just check your setup here. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
- neilsimp1 6y ago
  Which one is less polished, and are you implying Chrome is more so? Maybe it's "polished" but it's incredibly slow and FF/Brave both have better features from what I can see.
  - franklyt 6y ago
    It’s not factually accurate to claim that chrome is “slow”, especially vis-a-vis Firefox.
    - hedora 6y ago
      I’ve found it depends more on which hardware you use than on which browser. Firefox is unusable on some of my machines, where Chrome is OK, and it’s the opposite on others. (All are low end machines.) I think it mostly depends on video drivers.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Ghostery, at least in the past, has sold user data. ABP allows companies to pay to whitelist their ads[1], and is somewhat bloated in my experience. I highly recommend uBlock Origin. Their manifesto[2] most closely aligns with my beliefs on how my browser should behave: "The user decides what web content is acceptable or not in their browser." 1: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization 2: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Install whatever. You can check how good your set up is. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
  - HWR_14 6y ago
    Does uBlock Origin have, like NoScript, an easy way to toggle whether scripts (and other resources) from various domains are loaded straight in the browser? Or is it "modify a config text file and reload". I figured out how to block specific elements, but I do miss the ease of just turning off sources from a GUI of "everything that loaded".
    - cmeacham98 6y ago
      Yes, here's an image of the uBlock Origin UI: https://files.catbox.moe/upzo0c.png https://files.catbox.moe/upzo0c.png You can see you can block by domain, host, and some pre-determined groups like "3rd-party".
      - HWR_14 6y ago
        It was hidden behind the advanced user setting. Thank you.
Vinnl 6y ago
For Firefox Focus, IIRC the best strategy now is to install regular Firefox on your phone, and set it to private browsing by default. That will also include all the latest tracking protection additions that have been added to Firefox over the last couple of releases, and otherwise should be functionally practically equivalent. (Though I suppose with the addition that regular Firefox supports a number of extensions, such as uBlock Origin.)
- franklyt 6y ago
  My complaint about FF is the inclusion of pocket, a closed-source default with a political bias doesn’t seem appropriate for an open source privacy-focused browser.
  - wussboy 6y ago
    Both of your comments in this thread confuse me. “Don’t use these tools which greatly increase your privacy and security because of some minor potential flaw.” To me it sounds like you don’t want to get in to the lifeboat because you might get a sliver climbing in. And you encourage others to stay out as well. Odd.
    - franklyt 6y ago
      I didn’t say what you’re saying I said. Making inferences based on my posts and presenting those inferences as unequivocal statements I’ve made is... well, not helpful. I think alternate perspectives and legitimate concerns about all technologies should be discussed without devolving into accusations that I’m against the platform.
    - caslon 6y ago
      I agree with Mozilla's views politically, but Pocket is proprietary. It's a major flaw. Something proprietary (I know the Firefox integration is free now, but the server isn't), controlled by an American corporation, turned on by default, that sends content to the user. If it was only an RSS reader, fine. But it sends arbitrary content to the user from Pocket's servers! What if there's an RCE? Their refusal to free Pocket despite it being years since the acquisition points to something sinister, like a NSL.
adrianh 6y ago
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such, Safari is basically the new IE6 — it lags all other modern browsers and prevents websites from taking advantage of nice new features. (Yes, some of these features are available with polyfills but others are not polyfillable.) I wish the author had noted this, given the high visibility of the NYT. More people need to know about Apple’s neutering of browsers on iOS. It’s crippling the growth of the web. One specific example: Safari still doesn’t support AudioWorklet, which means iOS users get lower-quality slowdown in my product Soundslice (a feature we rolled out last week: https://www.soundslice.com/blog/199/introducing-enhanced-slowdown-and-perfect-looping/ https://www.soundslice.com/blog/199/introducing-enhanced-slo...). If more iOS users knew about this, perhaps they’d lobby Apple for better web support.
- ricc 6y ago
  The author probably doesn't know this.
- franklyt 6y ago
  I can’t believe this was overlooked by a prestigious publication.
  - izacus 6y ago
    Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously made me question about their reputation.
    - finiteseries 6y ago
      I’m still in a state of outrage/shock over their article on the “far right” joining telegram in the millions in the aftermath of the capitol riots. There I was, a week or two removed from helping my roommate move his gigantic Nigerian family group chat away from WhatsApp when [0] pops up in my HN feed. They actually implied most of those millions of new Telegram users, 94% of which weren’t even in North America, were motivated entirely by the capitol riots. Completely omitting the fact the WhatsApp -> FB data sharing message was sent to every single user in the world on that very same day, January 6th. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app...
preommr 6y ago
This is not the way. If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we'll lose in the long run. It's not possible to have 0.05% percent of the market, and try and compete with goliaths like Google. So it creates a feedback loop of a browser that people don't really use because it lacks features/popularity. Or/and these companies are also forced to do things like Brave and their in-browser ads. Meanwhile there'll be a group of people that'll say things like 'if you really want privacy don't use chrome, use these private browsers'. Completely taking off the pressure on the bigger browsers. Also, catering specifically to privacy is always weird. It makes people think that you have something to hide. Everybody wants privacy, but someone really goes out of their way, it makes you think they have something very serious (i.e. illegal) to hide. It's sketchy. There needs to be a collective awareness and greater pressure put on browser companies.
- hedora 6y ago
  If you want a more private browser, then switch to a more private browser. There’s no reason these browsers have to remain niche, and the more market share they have, the more pressure they will apply to mainstream web browsers and websites. Also, these niche browsers test out advanced features that can feed back upstream, and improve privacy for all users. (For instance, many of the Tor Browser features have been upstreamed and enabled by default in Firefox.)
- fastball 6y ago
  Seems like Brave is best of both worlds in this case. It's a Chromium browser with a focus on privacy.
  - bejelentkezni 6y ago
    Brave is spyware[1][2]. 1. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html 2. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#brave https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#brave
    - fastball 6y ago
bejelentkezni 6y ago
If you want as hardline a view on privacy in web browsing as possible, I recommend browsing through the Spyware Watchdog[1] and this article[2] from one of its main contributors. Many will find that their standards are too high for them, and may seem paranoid or such, but it is notable that both Firefox and Chrome have existing forks that even these hardliners deem clean, so for a browser to be guaranteed spyware-free is not only possible but a present reality. Brave is not private. 1: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html 2: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html
prophesi 6y ago
Firefox is good enough. Just remember to change your search provider, since they're still tied to a contract with Google. Their multi-account containers have been awesome, and I hope other browsers adopt similar functionality. For further privacy, there's a pretty radical version of Firefox called Tor.
- freebuju 6y ago
  Tor browser is not a version of Firefox. It is a browser project on its own. Couldn't let this coy remark just fly.
  - paddim8 6y ago
    No need to be pedantic. It clearly is based on firefox, no?
    - freebuju 6y ago
      Reading the poster's comment in its entirety, one could almost conclude with certainity that above poster was being sly in their attempt to liken Firefox to Tor browser's capabilities. This juxtaposition forms the basis of my criticism.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/0S1rJ https://archive.is/0S1rJ
paulcole 6y ago
After trying Duck Duck Go and Brave’s products, it turns out I actually don’t care much about privacy. I care much more about using a product I like and that works the way I want. Has anyone else felt this way?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  And the companies who scoop up information that doesn't seem relevant at the time may not, themselves be doing anything you'd disapprove of. Now, when those companies are purchased, hacked, or have some policy shift you don't fancy, there may be issues. I've been online a couple decades, so I'm a bit sanguine. If somebody really wants to doxx me or get me fired or do more than the annual ID theft on the credit card, what am I to do? Take reasonable precautions and don't over-worry seems like the reasonable approach.
- idop 6y ago
  That last sentence - "I care much more about using a product I like and that works the way I want" - perfectly describes my usage of Firefox with a heavily modified configuration and various addons, all for the sake of privacy and security-related purposes.
- igetspam 6y ago
  I use the DDG browser exclusively, on mobile devices. Haven't noticed anything not working as expected. I ditched chrome years ago though, so perhaps there's some shiny internet whizbang I'm not aware of. I care about privacy more than I care about most things though.
Meniteos4 6y ago
It's ironic that in the 90s, people were afraid IE dominance would destroy the internet. Now with Microsoft adopting chrome means we are faced with google destroying the internet. Microsoft screwed the pooch abandoning its browser and adopting chrome/chromium.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  You’re blaming Microsoft for Google’s near technological monopoly? Then choosing not to play anymore doesn’t have to be a “blame Microsoft”-worthy event.
jrochkind1 6y ago
OK, we know these kinds of articles often get a lot of things wrong. I'm not interested in critiquing the article really cause it's boring even though I'm pretty sure the journalist confused about some things. But i am interested in my own understanding. I don't know too much about these products. Ordinary Firefox was not mentioned -- maybe he's only interested in things that run on mobile? It's not clear to me. But my question about the actual topic is, is there any reason DuckDuckGo or Brave would be more privacy-protecting than ordinary Firefox, any features they have thus?

79 points by mhb 6y ago

Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions. It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a less polished browser.

franklyt 6y ago
Ghostery? Owned by Cliqz? Seems a bit questionable.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Just check your setup here. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
neilsimp1 6y ago
Which one is less polished, and are you implying Chrome is more so? Maybe it's "polished" but it's incredibly slow and FF/Brave both have better features from what I can see.
- franklyt 6y ago
  It’s not factually accurate to claim that chrome is “slow”, especially vis-a-vis Firefox.
  - hedora 6y ago
    I’ve found it depends more on which hardware you use than on which browser. Firefox is unusable on some of my machines, where Chrome is OK, and it’s the opposite on others. (All are low end machines.) I think it mostly depends on video drivers.
cmeacham98 6y ago
Ghostery, at least in the past, has sold user data. ABP allows companies to pay to whitelist their ads[1], and is somewhat bloated in my experience. I highly recommend uBlock Origin. Their manifesto[2] most closely aligns with my beliefs on how my browser should behave: "The user decides what web content is acceptable or not in their browser." 1: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization 2: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Install whatever. You can check how good your set up is. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
- HWR_14 6y ago
  Does uBlock Origin have, like NoScript, an easy way to toggle whether scripts (and other resources) from various domains are loaded straight in the browser? Or is it "modify a config text file and reload". I figured out how to block specific elements, but I do miss the ease of just turning off sources from a GUI of "everything that loaded".
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    Yes, here's an image of the uBlock Origin UI: https://files.catbox.moe/upzo0c.png https://files.catbox.moe/upzo0c.png You can see you can block by domain, host, and some pre-determined groups like "3rd-party".
    - HWR_14 6y ago
      It was hidden behind the advanced user setting. Thank you.

Vinnl 6y ago

For Firefox Focus, IIRC the best strategy now is to install regular Firefox on your phone, and set it to private browsing by default. That will also include all the latest tracking protection additions that have been added to Firefox over the last couple of releases, and otherwise should be functionally practically equivalent. (Though I suppose with the addition that regular Firefox supports a number of extensions, such as uBlock Origin.)

franklyt 6y ago
My complaint about FF is the inclusion of pocket, a closed-source default with a political bias doesn’t seem appropriate for an open source privacy-focused browser.
- wussboy 6y ago
  Both of your comments in this thread confuse me. “Don’t use these tools which greatly increase your privacy and security because of some minor potential flaw.” To me it sounds like you don’t want to get in to the lifeboat because you might get a sliver climbing in. And you encourage others to stay out as well. Odd.
  - franklyt 6y ago
    I didn’t say what you’re saying I said. Making inferences based on my posts and presenting those inferences as unequivocal statements I’ve made is... well, not helpful. I think alternate perspectives and legitimate concerns about all technologies should be discussed without devolving into accusations that I’m against the platform.
  - caslon 6y ago
    I agree with Mozilla's views politically, but Pocket is proprietary. It's a major flaw. Something proprietary (I know the Firefox integration is free now, but the server isn't), controlled by an American corporation, turned on by default, that sends content to the user. If it was only an RSS reader, fine. But it sends arbitrary content to the user from Pocket's servers! What if there's an RCE? Their refusal to free Pocket despite it being years since the acquisition points to something sinister, like a NSL.

adrianh 6y ago

The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such, Safari is basically the new IE6 — it lags all other modern browsers and prevents websites from taking advantage of nice new features. (Yes, some of these features are available with polyfills but others are not polyfillable.) I wish the author had noted this, given the high visibility of the NYT. More people need to know about Apple’s neutering of browsers on iOS. It’s crippling the growth of the web. One specific example: Safari still doesn’t support AudioWorklet, which means iOS users get lower-quality slowdown in my product Soundslice (a feature we rolled out last week: https://www.soundslice.com/blog/199/introducing-enhanced-slowdown-and-perfect-looping/ https://www.soundslice.com/blog/199/introducing-enhanced-slo...). If more iOS users knew about this, perhaps they’d lobby Apple for better web support.

ricc 6y ago
The author probably doesn't know this.
franklyt 6y ago
I can’t believe this was overlooked by a prestigious publication.
- izacus 6y ago
  Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously made me question about their reputation.
  - finiteseries 6y ago
    I’m still in a state of outrage/shock over their article on the “far right” joining telegram in the millions in the aftermath of the capitol riots. There I was, a week or two removed from helping my roommate move his gigantic Nigerian family group chat away from WhatsApp when [0] pops up in my HN feed. They actually implied most of those millions of new Telegram users, 94% of which weren’t even in North America, were motivated entirely by the capitol riots. Completely omitting the fact the WhatsApp -> FB data sharing message was sent to every single user in the world on that very same day, January 6th. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app...

preommr 6y ago

This is not the way. If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we'll lose in the long run. It's not possible to have 0.05% percent of the market, and try and compete with goliaths like Google. So it creates a feedback loop of a browser that people don't really use because it lacks features/popularity. Or/and these companies are also forced to do things like Brave and their in-browser ads. Meanwhile there'll be a group of people that'll say things like 'if you really want privacy don't use chrome, use these private browsers'. Completely taking off the pressure on the bigger browsers. Also, catering specifically to privacy is always weird. It makes people think that you have something to hide. Everybody wants privacy, but someone really goes out of their way, it makes you think they have something very serious (i.e. illegal) to hide. It's sketchy. There needs to be a collective awareness and greater pressure put on browser companies.

hedora 6y ago
If you want a more private browser, then switch to a more private browser. There’s no reason these browsers have to remain niche, and the more market share they have, the more pressure they will apply to mainstream web browsers and websites. Also, these niche browsers test out advanced features that can feed back upstream, and improve privacy for all users. (For instance, many of the Tor Browser features have been upstreamed and enabled by default in Firefox.)
fastball 6y ago
Seems like Brave is best of both worlds in this case. It's a Chromium browser with a focus on privacy.
- bejelentkezni 6y ago
  Brave is spyware[1][2]. 1. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html 2. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#brave https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#brave
  - fastball 6y ago

bejelentkezni 6y ago

If you want as hardline a view on privacy in web browsing as possible, I recommend browsing through the Spyware Watchdog[1] and this article[2] from one of its main contributors. Many will find that their standards are too high for them, and may seem paranoid or such, but it is notable that both Firefox and Chrome have existing forks that even these hardliners deem clean, so for a browser to be guaranteed spyware-free is not only possible but a present reality. Brave is not private. 1: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html 2: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html

prophesi 6y ago

Firefox is good enough. Just remember to change your search provider, since they're still tied to a contract with Google. Their multi-account containers have been awesome, and I hope other browsers adopt similar functionality. For further privacy, there's a pretty radical version of Firefox called Tor.

freebuju 6y ago
Tor browser is not a version of Firefox. It is a browser project on its own. Couldn't let this coy remark just fly.
- paddim8 6y ago
  No need to be pedantic. It clearly is based on firefox, no?
  - freebuju 6y ago
    Reading the poster's comment in its entirety, one could almost conclude with certainity that above poster was being sly in their attempt to liken Firefox to Tor browser's capabilities. This juxtaposition forms the basis of my criticism.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/0S1rJ https://archive.is/0S1rJ

paulcole 6y ago

After trying Duck Duck Go and Brave’s products, it turns out I actually don’t care much about privacy. I care much more about using a product I like and that works the way I want. Has anyone else felt this way?

smitty1e 6y ago
And the companies who scoop up information that doesn't seem relevant at the time may not, themselves be doing anything you'd disapprove of. Now, when those companies are purchased, hacked, or have some policy shift you don't fancy, there may be issues. I've been online a couple decades, so I'm a bit sanguine. If somebody really wants to doxx me or get me fired or do more than the annual ID theft on the credit card, what am I to do? Take reasonable precautions and don't over-worry seems like the reasonable approach.
idop 6y ago
That last sentence - "I care much more about using a product I like and that works the way I want" - perfectly describes my usage of Firefox with a heavily modified configuration and various addons, all for the sake of privacy and security-related purposes.
igetspam 6y ago
I use the DDG browser exclusively, on mobile devices. Haven't noticed anything not working as expected. I ditched chrome years ago though, so perhaps there's some shiny internet whizbang I'm not aware of. I care about privacy more than I care about most things though.

Meniteos4 6y ago

It's ironic that in the 90s, people were afraid IE dominance would destroy the internet. Now with Microsoft adopting chrome means we are faced with google destroying the internet. Microsoft screwed the pooch abandoning its browser and adopting chrome/chromium.

t-writescode 6y ago
You’re blaming Microsoft for Google’s near technological monopoly? Then choosing not to play anymore doesn’t have to be a “blame Microsoft”-worthy event.

jrochkind1 6y ago

OK, we know these kinds of articles often get a lot of things wrong. I'm not interested in critiquing the article really cause it's boring even though I'm pretty sure the journalist confused about some things. But i am interested in my own understanding. I don't know too much about these products. Ordinary Firefox was not mentioned -- maybe he's only interested in things that run on mobile? It's not clear to me. But my question about the actual topic is, is there any reason DuckDuckGo or Brave would be more privacy-protecting than ordinary Firefox, any features they have thus?