6 ms·

Yet another plugin to add to my privacy arsenal (opt-outs from Google, AdBlock, Ghostery, Disconnect, and now Badger). This really reminds me of the early year

by furyg3 12y ago

Yet another plugin to add to my privacy arsenal (opt-outs from Google, AdBlock, Ghostery, Disconnect, and now Badger). This really reminds me of the early years of antivirus on Windows, when you needed at least two antivirus suites to catch everything. Just as vendors eventually acknowledged (mostly) their responsibility for security on their OSes, browsers need to step up and start implementing these features by default, and innovating. It's crazy that, at the moment, I have to grant a third party total and unlimited access to my browser and history in order to protect my own privacy. This should be on, by default, since most people are generally either adamantly against being tracked or ignorant of it and their options. The handful of people that have a hard-on for targeted marketing should be ticking checkboxes in preference panels and installing plugins, not people who would rather Neilson not know everything about them...

scrollaway 12y ago
This seems like it would completely replace Disconnect/Ghostery. Am I correct?
- untothebreach 12y ago
  I think he is aiming for redundancy. I.E., what happens if Ghostery starts letting companies pay to be 'let through'? The GP might know about it, since I'm sure that kind of story would find it's way to HN, but it's nice to have some redundancy when it comes to protecting ones privacy.
  - scrollaway 12y ago
    Which is why it's awesome the EFF is doing this one. They can be trusted.
higherpurpose 12y ago
You could just use Epic instead, which would be like using Linux or Mac without an antivirus: https://www.epicbrowser.com/ https://www.epicbrowser.com/
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's not even open source yet, why exactly would one trust it?
  - uulbiy 12y ago
    From their website's faq[1]: > Is Epic Open Source? > Yes! Epic is open source software. Chromium which Epic is built on is also open source software. We haven't had a chance to formally release Epic's source code because we've been giving 200% to get the product ready, and Chromium is a HUGE code base so to release it in an organized way will take a bit of effort. That being said, if you want to know anything about Epic's changes to the core Chromium, if you want any files, any code, anything at all, just write us and we're happy to get it to you. We will be releasing all the code in organized git repository soon as well -- sorry for the delay. However, please note that Epic uses a builtin proxy. Also from the faq: > Who powers Epic’s proxy service? > Spotflux at present powers Epic’s proxy. [1]: https://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html https://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html
    - icebraining 12y ago
      If it doesn't have the source available along with the binaries, it's not open source, regardless of their good intentions.
      - perlgeek 12y ago
        Afaict that's not technically correct. For example the GPL doesn't require that you provide the source code up-front, it's enough if you provide it when asked for. Which seems to be what the epic folks do.
        Spittie 12y ago
        From the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd) 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. So it really depends on your interpretation of "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code". I don't think I would label a "send us an email and (maybe) we'll give you the source or the patches) as Open Source, mostly because if a company doesn't already have their source in the open, they don't want it in the open, doesn't matter what they write on their site.
ASneakyFox 12y ago
Privacy is not a goal of Google chrome.
vvvv 12y ago
How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?
- ds9 12y ago
  Any promises of privacy or security are worthless unless it's on an open licence (GPL equivalent) - and in that case how would payment be enforced? Apparently you are asking a "trick question".
- hk__2 12y ago
  You mean Firefox?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Firefox is technically/indirectly ad-supported. I don't think it's much of a problem - which is why I use it - but it is an incentive to not piss of Google too much, which can conflict with its mission.
- furyg3 12y ago
  Off the cuff? $40. Of course my willingness would vary depending on the project, community, features, stability, etc... but there's precedent. I've had no problem donating similar amounts to browser projects in the past, or smaller amounts (+/- $10) to privacy plugins (Adblock, Disconnect). As a mac user, it's Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. All three are to varying degrees beholden to advertising powers who want my data, and aren't going to challenge the status quo in a major way. That needs to change, and I'd be willing to support that.
  - vvvv 12y ago
    Let's say $40 per annum, i.e. $3.33/month, to pay for a browser like we do for an OS. I'd be willing to pay for an essential piece of software that needs to be independent and look after me and my data. Simplifying, 39% of the world's 7.1bn population is using the internet [1]. That's 2.8bn people. Opera, the least popular major browser, has a 1.8% market share [2]. If the $40 browser could match that share, it'd be a $2bn p.a. business. Why hasn't it happened already? Are we so enamoured with "free" software that this couldn't get off the ground? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- ToastyMallows 12y ago
  > Meyer also says that Ghostery users are presented with clear disclosures about how the company uses their data if they opt in. > if they opt in. > opt in.

by furyg3 12y ago

scrollaway 12y ago

This seems like it would completely replace Disconnect/Ghostery. Am I correct?

untothebreach 12y ago
I think he is aiming for redundancy. I.E., what happens if Ghostery starts letting companies pay to be 'let through'? The GP might know about it, since I'm sure that kind of story would find it's way to HN, but it's nice to have some redundancy when it comes to protecting ones privacy.
- scrollaway 12y ago
  Which is why it's awesome the EFF is doing this one. They can be trusted.

higherpurpose 12y ago

You could just use Epic instead, which would be like using Linux or Mac without an antivirus: https://www.epicbrowser.com/ https://www.epicbrowser.com/

icebraining 12y ago
It's not even open source yet, why exactly would one trust it?
- uulbiy 12y ago
  From their website's faq[1]: > Is Epic Open Source? > Yes! Epic is open source software. Chromium which Epic is built on is also open source software. We haven't had a chance to formally release Epic's source code because we've been giving 200% to get the product ready, and Chromium is a HUGE code base so to release it in an organized way will take a bit of effort. That being said, if you want to know anything about Epic's changes to the core Chromium, if you want any files, any code, anything at all, just write us and we're happy to get it to you. We will be releasing all the code in organized git repository soon as well -- sorry for the delay. However, please note that Epic uses a builtin proxy. Also from the faq: > Who powers Epic’s proxy service? > Spotflux at present powers Epic’s proxy. [1]: https://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html https://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html
  - icebraining 12y ago
    If it doesn't have the source available along with the binaries, it's not open source, regardless of their good intentions.
    - perlgeek 12y ago
      Afaict that's not technically correct. For example the GPL doesn't require that you provide the source code up-front, it's enough if you provide it when asked for. Which seems to be what the epic folks do.
      - Spittie 12y ago
        From the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd) 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. So it really depends on your interpretation of "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code". I don't think I would label a "send us an email and (maybe) we'll give you the source or the patches) as Open Source, mostly because if a company doesn't already have their source in the open, they don't want it in the open, doesn't matter what they write on their site.

ASneakyFox 12y ago

Privacy is not a goal of Google chrome.

vvvv 12y ago

How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?

ds9 12y ago
Any promises of privacy or security are worthless unless it's on an open licence (GPL equivalent) - and in that case how would payment be enforced? Apparently you are asking a "trick question".
hk__2 12y ago
You mean Firefox?
- icebraining 12y ago
  Firefox is technically/indirectly ad-supported. I don't think it's much of a problem - which is why I use it - but it is an incentive to not piss of Google too much, which can conflict with its mission.
furyg3 12y ago
Off the cuff? $40. Of course my willingness would vary depending on the project, community, features, stability, etc... but there's precedent. I've had no problem donating similar amounts to browser projects in the past, or smaller amounts (+/- $10) to privacy plugins (Adblock, Disconnect). As a mac user, it's Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. All three are to varying degrees beholden to advertising powers who want my data, and aren't going to challenge the status quo in a major way. That needs to change, and I'd be willing to support that.
- vvvv 12y ago
  Let's say $40 per annum, i.e. $3.33/month, to pay for a browser like we do for an OS. I'd be willing to pay for an essential piece of software that needs to be independent and look after me and my data. Simplifying, 39% of the world's 7.1bn population is using the internet [1]. That's 2.8bn people. Opera, the least popular major browser, has a 1.8% market share [2]. If the $40 browser could match that share, it'd be a $2bn p.a. business. Why hasn't it happened already? Are we so enamoured with "free" software that this couldn't get off the ground? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ToastyMallows 12y ago
> Meyer also says that Ghostery users are presented with clear disclosures about how the company uses their data if they opt in. > if they opt in. > opt in.