3 ms·

I like Brave. But they always seem to be "asking forgiveness rather than permission".

drusepth 4y ago
Not the best vibe from a company whose livelihood is dependent on convincing more and more people to trust them with more and more data.
- jonathansampson 4y ago
  Brave doesn't ask you to trust it with more and more data; we explicitly do not want any of your data. This issue did not impact user data or privacy in any way either.
  - password4321 4y ago
    It's nice of you to stop by HN when your keywords are hit so you can rebut each comment, but it will stand in the record as PR. Simply put, Brave takes calculated risks to expand its revenue/marketshare. I only hear about it when things go wrong. It must be worth it, because it keeps happening.
  - drusepth 4y ago
    There are many facets to the Brave browser and the server-side Brave services it uses that would allow the Brave company to covertly collect all kinds of data from its users; Brave simply asks users to just trust that they don't want or aren't collecting that data. If one wouldn't trust a particular company with their data, I don't see why one would be any more likely to trust a company simply claiming they're not collecting said data. I do appreciate the few features designed to make it technically impossible for Brave to collect some/most of that feature's user data from, though.
    - jonathansampson 4y ago
      Data-harvesting would be quite difficult to hide given our source code is open to the public (i.e. https://code.brave.com https://code.brave.com and https://github.com/brave https://github.com/brave), and that we encourage web-proxy evaluation of network activity (a la https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/ https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/). In fact, reputable researchers in the privacy space have reviewed Brave, finding it to be the "most private" browser, in a class of its own: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. But does not collect user data--we don't want your data.
annoyingnoob 4y ago
Seems like their business model is at odds with their privacy goals.
- My70thaccount 4y ago
  [dead]
- jonathansampson 4y ago
  Not at all. EDDM doesn't impact user privacy. Brave never sees any user data during this process.
  - annoyingnoob 4y ago
    EDDM, the no opt-out mail service.
hunterb123 4y ago
Or they are just addressing the hyped up outrage generated by certain people.
gruez 4y ago
Given that EDDM is an official offering from USPS, and that USPS is a government agency, it's reasonable to conclude that this activity is state sanctioned. In that case what permission do they need to ask for?
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  USPS EDDM requires that you only put the area information (city, state, and zip code) and the EDDM label. The fact that this included actual addresses, much less names, is off. The only actual addresses that should be included are Do Not Deliver addresses. Something is fishy here. This doesn't seem to actually be through EDDM, but through some mailer vendor.
  - jonathansampson 4y ago
    It's EDDM, and previous mailers lacked printed names. Our request to exclude printed names, while honored in the past, was not honored with a recent batch. Rather than brushing this off, we chose instead to investigate where the break-down in communication occurred, and share our findings in the blog post. Thankfully, this issue has no impact on user-data, privacy, or security. But it is definitely frustrating for us when we expect names to NOT be printed, only to learn that a batch of mailers contained them after all.
    - nvrspyx 4y ago
      I don't understand why addresses are being used to begin with. They're not needed. You simply choose the route/zip code and the mailer will be dropped off at every mailbox on the route, hence the name "Every Door Direct Mailer". It's specifically to avoid using addresses. This sounds more like a traditional direct mailer through a vendor rather than EDDM.
      - jonathansampson 4y ago
        You're absolutely right; no-addresses is the ideal, and what we would have preferred over no-names from the beginning. We have a call this week to investigate further why addresses were included in the first place, and why our request to exclude any personalization was not respected.

Not the best vibe from a company whose livelihood is dependent on convincing more and more people to trust them with more and more data.

jonathansampson 4y ago
Brave doesn't ask you to trust it with more and more data; we explicitly do not want any of your data. This issue did not impact user data or privacy in any way either.
- password4321 4y ago
  It's nice of you to stop by HN when your keywords are hit so you can rebut each comment, but it will stand in the record as PR. Simply put, Brave takes calculated risks to expand its revenue/marketshare. I only hear about it when things go wrong. It must be worth it, because it keeps happening.
- drusepth 4y ago
  There are many facets to the Brave browser and the server-side Brave services it uses that would allow the Brave company to covertly collect all kinds of data from its users; Brave simply asks users to just trust that they don't want or aren't collecting that data. If one wouldn't trust a particular company with their data, I don't see why one would be any more likely to trust a company simply claiming they're not collecting said data. I do appreciate the few features designed to make it technically impossible for Brave to collect some/most of that feature's user data from, though.
  - jonathansampson 4y ago
    Data-harvesting would be quite difficult to hide given our source code is open to the public (i.e. https://code.brave.com https://code.brave.com and https://github.com/brave https://github.com/brave), and that we encourage web-proxy evaluation of network activity (a la https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/ https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/). In fact, reputable researchers in the privacy space have reviewed Brave, finding it to be the "most private" browser, in a class of its own: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. But does not collect user data--we don't want your data.

annoyingnoob 4y ago

Seems like their business model is at odds with their privacy goals.

My70thaccount 4y ago
[dead]
jonathansampson 4y ago
Not at all. EDDM doesn't impact user privacy. Brave never sees any user data during this process.
- annoyingnoob 4y ago
  EDDM, the no opt-out mail service.

hunterb123 4y ago

Or they are just addressing the hyped up outrage generated by certain people.

gruez 4y ago

Given that EDDM is an official offering from USPS, and that USPS is a government agency, it's reasonable to conclude that this activity is state sanctioned. In that case what permission do they need to ask for?

nvrspyx 4y ago
USPS EDDM requires that you only put the area information (city, state, and zip code) and the EDDM label. The fact that this included actual addresses, much less names, is off. The only actual addresses that should be included are Do Not Deliver addresses. Something is fishy here. This doesn't seem to actually be through EDDM, but through some mailer vendor.
- jonathansampson 4y ago
  It's EDDM, and previous mailers lacked printed names. Our request to exclude printed names, while honored in the past, was not honored with a recent batch. Rather than brushing this off, we chose instead to investigate where the break-down in communication occurred, and share our findings in the blog post. Thankfully, this issue has no impact on user-data, privacy, or security. But it is definitely frustrating for us when we expect names to NOT be printed, only to learn that a batch of mailers contained them after all.
  - nvrspyx 4y ago
    I don't understand why addresses are being used to begin with. They're not needed. You simply choose the route/zip code and the mailer will be dropped off at every mailbox on the route, hence the name "Every Door Direct Mailer". It's specifically to avoid using addresses. This sounds more like a traditional direct mailer through a vendor rather than EDDM.
    - jonathansampson 4y ago
      You're absolutely right; no-addresses is the ideal, and what we would have preferred over no-names from the beginning. We have a call this week to investigate further why addresses were included in the first place, and why our request to exclude any personalization was not respected.