3 ms·

> Given that Chrome (and Google in general) has possibly the best defensive security team in the world, it's hard for me to take these security-oriented forks t

> Given that Chrome (and Google in general) has possibly the best defensive security team in the world, it's hard for me to take these security-oriented forks too seriously. I think it depends on who and what you most eager to secure yourself from. If you think hackers are the greatest online threat, perhaps you should go with Chrome (if you chose between these two browsers). If you don't trust Google to stay classy when it comes to privacy and data collection, perhaps you could consider running a one or two versions old Iridium version of Chrome. Personally, I use Firefox. I prefer not to use a browser from a company that lives on data collection. Chrome might be kosher now (to be honest, I don' know), but a decision at the headquarters can change that at the next automatic update.

kentonv 12y ago
Hmm, on a second look I see that Iridium appears focused on privacy, not security. In that case they should call it "private browser", not "secure browser". These words mean very different things. Google's _security_ record is ridiculously good. Their _privacy_ record is at best questionable, and I can certainly see where people might be interested in a privacy-centric fork of Chrome. That said, I was under the impression that all of Chrome's "phone-home" features can be turned off via settings.
- wtbob 12y ago
  The thing is, privacy is security: I'm not secure if someone else has access to my private information. We're right back to the 'government backdoor' argument, only in this case it's the 'Google backdoor.'
Havoc 12y ago
>Personally, I use Firefox. I seem to recall a recent hn post that made FF sound like a bit of a privacy disaster in its own right - specifically on the topic of addons (they all seem to phone home).
- unicornporn 12y ago
  Yeah, the extension situation is supposedly questionable. I think you should always be wary with extensions. I usually limit myself to popular and open-sourced extensions.
- rockdoe 12y ago
  Those add-ons are things you install yourself on top of the browser. What does that have to do with Firefox's privacy? Nothing. Random software installed from the Internet can be harmful, who'd have thought!
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    Except that the browser is missing a lot excepted features and historically positioned itself as "just pile extensions on top of FF to get features we won't add or have removed". adblock ? disable javascript ? mouse gestures ? download manager ? privacy protection ? duplicate tab ? and so on all are extensions because mozilla refused to implement or removed those features.

kentonv 12y ago

Hmm, on a second look I see that Iridium appears focused on privacy, not security. In that case they should call it "private browser", not "secure browser". These words mean very different things. Google's _security_ record is ridiculously good. Their _privacy_ record is at best questionable, and I can certainly see where people might be interested in a privacy-centric fork of Chrome. That said, I was under the impression that all of Chrome's "phone-home" features can be turned off via settings.

wtbob 12y ago
The thing is, privacy is security: I'm not secure if someone else has access to my private information. We're right back to the 'government backdoor' argument, only in this case it's the 'Google backdoor.'

Havoc 12y ago

>Personally, I use Firefox. I seem to recall a recent hn post that made FF sound like a bit of a privacy disaster in its own right - specifically on the topic of addons (they all seem to phone home).

unicornporn 12y ago
Yeah, the extension situation is supposedly questionable. I think you should always be wary with extensions. I usually limit myself to popular and open-sourced extensions.
rockdoe 12y ago
Those add-ons are things you install yourself on top of the browser. What does that have to do with Firefox's privacy? Nothing. Random software installed from the Internet can be harmful, who'd have thought!
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  Except that the browser is missing a lot excepted features and historically positioned itself as "just pile extensions on top of FF to get features we won't add or have removed". adblock ? disable javascript ? mouse gestures ? download manager ? privacy protection ? duplicate tab ? and so on all are extensions because mozilla refused to implement or removed those features.