Sylos

48 ms·

421.
by Sylos 9y ago
Yeah, it's not easy to convey how pressing the issue is by just stating that Jakarta is sinking, but that really is a surprisingly dumb headline for an otherwise solid article.
422.
by Sylos 9y ago
You don't really have a whole lot of sensors on a Raspberry Pi, so I doubt it would function, if you can make it run in the first place...
423.
by Sylos 9y ago
Without tracking scripts, many webpage owners will be making much less money off of Firefox. If they don't make a whole lot of money off of Firefox, they won't test and optimize for Firefox much. So, we'd be seeing a lot more
424.
by Sylos 9y ago
Well, yeah, "Tracking Protection", as it's called, is far from what NoScript does (which does a boatload more than just blocking JavaScript). But it is quite a lot like AdBlock Plus or uBlock Origin, except not focused on blo
425.
by Sylos 9y ago
Many people who follow the ideals of free software also value their privacy. A service requiring you to interact with Google software in order to use it, is pretty much a surefire way to find out that you and the service provider are not on
426.
by Sylos 9y ago
Presumably, their ad blocker will primarily block other ad networks' ads, so then it would be a netgain for them to enable it on mobile, too.
427.
by Sylos 9y ago
You can: https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver I hear, it's not that easy to setup, though, as Mozilla only really needed to set it up for themselves a handful of times, probably.
428.
by Sylos 9y ago
I don't remember that too precisely anymore, but are you sure that you're not thinking of the identifier? It used to be pretty cryptic by itself. Now they use the e-mail address as identifier.
429.
by Sylos 9y ago
Retrofitting something into a definition does not help anyone. We have more precision available than calling it "spyware" can deliver, so argue around that. If you think their anonymisation techniques are faulty or you have reason
430.
by Sylos 9y ago
And directly following your quote: > Cliqz uses several techniques to attempt to remove sensitive information from this browsing data before it is sent from Firefox. Cliqz does not build browsing profiles for individual users and discard
431.
by Sylos 9y ago
Firefox Sync is end-to-end-encrypted with only one password. That Google requires two is a design choice.
432.
by Sylos 9y ago
Because that would be absolutely nuclear for Chrome's PR. There are a handful of places where Chrome needs to shine and then they obviously watch out for those more. The depths of the codebase look much the contrary. With Firefox, the
433.
by Sylos 9y ago
> shady consideration for the money - check until proven otherwise. I don't think that actually is correct. The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, as has already been pointed out above. As such, they specify a mission and then are
434.
by Sylos 9y ago
> Would you (or someone else in the know) please clarify what additional user data (if any) the default-enabled bootstrap add-on caused to be collected when the extensions.pug.lookingglass preference was disabled? It did not collect anyt
435.
by Sylos 9y ago
How is this a particular attack surface? Changing an about:config value requires quite a bit of effort from an attacker and enabling this extension would not actually pose a security risk either. There's plenty of better about:config v
436.
by Sylos 9y ago
I doubt they're going to change anything about Cliqz, as there's no actual privacy concern with it. There's the technological feasibility for Cliqz GmbH to steal user data, but Mozilla owns parts of Cliqz GmbH, so knows what&
437.
by Sylos 9y ago
Right. What relevance does Chrome for Enterprise/Education having this clause when neither Chrome for normal people nor Chromium have this clause? I do mostly trust Google, if they're legally bound to not do the things that I don&
438.
by Sylos 9y ago
Yeah, because developing those pays off in other ways. And Mozilla has a contract with Cliqz that requires them to deanonymize the data and with Google to not use the data for anything else. It's perfectly possible to cooperate with co
439.
by Sylos 9y ago
Wikipedia is completely different, because pretty much any user can contribute at any point in time. There's very little money involved for actually developing it, they mainly just need to maintain the infrastructure. And well, Linux i
440.
by Sylos 9y ago
>and also in the form of "bugs" that slipped into the browser largely out of a lack of consideration for users' privacy by devs. Tor Browser is based on Firefox. Human lifes would be at risk, if Tor Browser were to send ad
441.
by Sylos 9y ago
Personally, I'd much rather have them make money through these sort of small tidbits than rely entirely on Google money. If they actually were on a slippery slope and selling out user privacy or whatnot for profit, I'd also not th
442.
by Sylos 9y ago
The GDPR allows suing of any organisation, whether from the EU or not, as long as they process data from people in the EU. But for that, you need Mozilla to actually violate privacy or for them to perform a contract with another company and
443.
by Sylos 9y ago
I personally don't see a problem with what Mozilla is doing, but I really don't care what browser people are using, as long as it's not from a for-profit, so: https://otter-browser.org/
444.
by Sylos 9y ago
And you don't see a problem with having no money for actually developing the browser?
445.
by Sylos 9y ago
By it not actually being a privacy-concern and the "shitstorms" frankly being tiny. These are completely isolated to HN, Reddit, Slashdot and the like. No serious journalist is going to report on it, because doing even the tiniest
446.
by Sylos 9y ago
Mozilla owns Pocket...
447.
by Sylos 9y ago
Taking money from Google, which people dislike as well. Basically Mozilla is supposed to develop a browser that's faster than Chrome, more customizable than anything out there, doesn't allow even the vaguest conspiracy theory of s
448.
by Sylos 9y ago
Define "affected". The extension might have gotten installed. The extension did not actually do anything, though, if you did not enable its function via about:config.
449.
by Sylos 9y ago
Well, thankfully the extension did not actually do anything at all. You would have had to manually enable it in about:config, before it would have done what you described.
450.
by Sylos 9y ago
You're making a fool of yourself, if you think that other browsers are better in any way, shape or form.

More ›