3 ms·
Security ≠ privacy. This is well-tread, mistaken path. Chromium > all, for security. But for privacy, sacrificed by all of them out of the box (yes, Firefox
by tata71 5y ago
Security ≠ privacy.
This is well-tread, mistaken path.
Chromium > all, for security.
But for privacy, sacrificed by all of them out of the box (yes, Firefox is a noisy SOB too, no I won't dig up the articles people have written on the traffic captured for you).
Your settings are very, very important to your browser privacy, regardless of which.
- jmull 5y agoWell, don’t get caught up in unimportant distinctions. Security vs. privacy depends on the relationships between the subject of data, the holder of data and those seeking to use the data. Consider the relationships between browser end users, Google, and the parties who provide Google’s revenue. If we want to distinguish privacy from security here, we have to argue about how to characterize these relationships and hash through the details of the flow of data. It’s pointless and unhelpful.
- tata71 5y agoI would trust Chrome to flash GrapheneOS to my Pixel — that's security. I do not trust it not to report back that I use GrapheneOS, or which internet communities I visit, back to Google for use in who knows what data correlation research — that's privacy.
- jmull 5y agoBut I wonder what your definitional difference is. I think a security issue is one that allows another party to take information or property you have without your consent, and use it for their gain without regard for the harm it may do to you or others. It's arguable, but I believe that's at the core of Google's business model with regard to Chrome users.
- tata71 5y agoYou can, theoretically, have security without privacy, but no privacy without first having security!