Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#111

Post by mgbmtl »

wtbob wrote: post #102
peteretep wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people don't care about > their privacy online Apple are betting they will do, and I think that's prescient. Only need a few more Ashley Madisons to see a sea change in this area, and a browser that's been ahead of the curve for a long time has a lot to gain.

> > most people don't care about their privacy online > Apple are betting they will do No they're not. iCloud is still not end-to-end encrypted; iMessage users still trust Apple to verify identity; macOS and iOS users still cannot verify the source of the OSes they run. Apple may be betting that people care about online-privacy snake oil.

> Apple may be betting that people care about online-privacy snake oil.

You can't blame people for not fully understanding how their data is protected. Even the average geek gets confused pretty quickly (I know I do).

People also chose their battles. Between facial recognition, revenge porn, online harassment, IMSI catchers, video surveillance, police overreach, and many other issues, they may not think of end-to-end encryption as a priority, but people do care about their privacy.

As techs, we have to do our part in explaining these things correctly, and also making sure we push forward legislation that helps protect people. This isn't something that will self-regulate.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#112

Post by gsnedders »

mtgx wrote: post #74
Fej wrote: post #14

This would be a miracle for privacy advocates. However, I'm worried that Mozilla could become irrelevant in the meantime. I say this as a die-hard Firefox user (I even refuse to use any of the forks that remove the branding). Mozilla needs to be making moves that keep them relevant. This move is great for some privacy-minded folks who don't know that the Tor Browser Bundle exists, but unfortunately... most people don…

Honestly, the biggest thing that hurts Mozilla's market share right now is the pre-loading of Chrome on Android devices. Mozilla should hope that the EU takes some kind of action against Google over this, so at least Google shouldn't consider it a "hostile action" when a random OEM wants to put Firefox on its devices rather than Chrome. I would say the same applies to iOS, but to a smaller degree. Also, I'm not sure…

> Honestly, the biggest thing that hurts Mozilla's market share right now is the pre-loading of Chrome on Android devices. Mozilla should hope that the EU takes some kind of action against Google over this, so at least Google shouldn't consider it a "hostile action" when a random OEM wants to put Firefox on its devices rather than Chrome.

Why? What has Google done monopolistically here? They don't stop OEMs from shipping other browsers, as far as I'm aware, even as the default. Samsung, noticeably, ship Samsung Internet (still Chromium-based) as the default browser on their devices.

The fact that OEMs basically always decide not to ship other browsers isn't something that's Google's fault.

> Also, I'm not sure if Microsoft still respects the browser option thing in Europe with Windows 10 anymore.

They don't. The five year term of the EC and Microsoft agreement ended at the end of 2014, and they've had no obligation to ever since. The website itself has been gone since mid-2015.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#113

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

kerkeslager wrote: post #109
phyzome wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's not safe. Exit nodes can trivially screw around with plain HTTP (both snoop on and rewrite), and it also puts them in a MitM position for new HTTPS bugs. That's a risk you take when using Tor, and it's not a tradeoff you can reasonably convey to existing Firefox users who are used to Private mode meaning a certain thing. Also, the Tor network probably doesn't have enough exit node capacity to handle th…

> Exit nodes can trivially screw around with plain HTTP (both snoop on and rewrite), and it also puts them in a MitM position for new HTTPS bugs. This is no different from your ISP or the guy next to you on the coffee shop wireless. If you don't want people to snoop and rewrite your HTTP connection, don't use HTTP. And the solution to broken HTTPS is to fix HTTPS. Tor doesn't decrease your security in either of these…

> This is no different from your ISP or the guy next to you on the coffee shop wireless.

You're a paying customer of your ISP and they're bound by the law and your contract.

Tor exit nodes can be anyone, anywhere, who feels like messing up your traffic.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#114

Post by neoncontrails »

frenchy wrote: post #59
neoncontrails wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know how to change the default search engine, but the settings don't persist from session to session (at least not when the browser is launched from Selenium).

Perhaps Selenium doesn't use an existing profile when it loads because that could subtly change its behavior every time it is run (for example, which links are visited).

This makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#115

Post by [deleted] »

frenchy wrote: post #59
neoncontrails wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know how to change the default search engine, but the settings don't persist from session to session (at least not when the browser is launched from Selenium).

Perhaps Selenium doesn't use an existing profile when it loads because that could subtly change its behavior every time it is run (for example, which links are visited).

[deleted]

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#116

Post by RubyPinch »

int_19h wrote: post #64
yohui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people read the title ( Mozilla: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser” ) and assumed Mozilla wants to incorporate all the Tor Browser's features. A closer look at the link should make it clear that the changes being discussed are more specific. It's almost clickbait.

I've interpreted the title that way, too, but partly because it might actually make sense. Consider this. Firefox peaked a while ago; since then, Chrome ate every other browser's lunch, and the only browser that had user share declining faster than Firefox was IE (but even so, IE still has more users). Google has the brand recognition on their side, and on top of that, they have actually made a browser that "just wor…

eh, the final pieces are kind of all being worked on

multiprocessing to stop freezing issues and increase response speed

a permissioned API for extensions, easier and saner full themes system (faster/easier development time for updates, and a wider range of extensions/themes as a result)

and switching critical components to a safer language)

which imo are more important for users than doing something an existing firefox fork does (like, if there was demand for firefox with seamless tor, then they would get the firefox with seamless tor today, because it already exists)

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#117

Post by c22 »

tedmiston wrote: post #94
phyzome wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's not safe. Exit nodes can trivially screw around with plain HTTP (both snoop on and rewrite), and it also puts them in a MitM position for new HTTPS bugs. That's a risk you take when using Tor, and it's not a tradeoff you can reasonably convey to existing Firefox users who are used to Private mode meaning a certain thing. Also, the Tor network probably doesn't have enough exit node capacity to handle th…

Not to mention non-technical users will be confused and complain how slow it would become.

Especially this since most users of private browsing are probably streaming video content.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#118

Post by c22 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #113
kerkeslager wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exit nodes can trivially screw around with plain HTTP (both snoop on and rewrite), and it also puts them in a MitM position for new HTTPS bugs. This is no different from your ISP or the guy next to you on the coffee shop wireless. If you don't want people to snoop and rewrite your HTTP connection, don't use HTTP. And the solution to broken HTTPS is to fix HTTPS. Tor doesn't decrease your security in either of these…

> This is no different from your ISP or the guy next to you on the coffee shop wireless. You're a paying customer of your ISP and they're bound by the law and your contract. Tor exit nodes can be anyone, anywhere, who feels like messing up your traffic.

Also some desired endpoints might drop/mess with your traffic simply because it came from a tor exit.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#119

Post by ionised »

eitland wrote: post #103
daveguy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their browser still doesn't support real extensions after all these years I'm confused. What is a "real extension"? Given the rich extension library for chrome I'm not sure of the difference. Rather than remind the poor souls, it may be time to acknowledge and accept the fact that "real extensions" aren't an actual benefit of Firefox over Chrome? If it is a reference to IE. I think the only reason IE has market sha…

For me, and I guess many hardcore FF users, the extensions on Chrome is a dealbreaker. I honestly tried and it was beyond my patience. A number of the best extensions just doesn't exist on Chrome, most notably all good tab-tree extensions. I guess this makes me a spoiled brat, but hey it is free so anyone can be a spoiled brat.

The extensions are one of the reasons I remain on Firefox as well.

Re: “Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser”

#120

Post by gtk40 »

mtgx wrote: post #73
intherdfield wrote: post #45

What is meant here IS NOT that every Firefox user would be browsing using Tor. The idea is that the Tor Browser would be standard Firefox with certain strong privacy settings enabled. i.e., the Tor project wouldn't have to patch Firefox source and recompile because their patches would already be in Firefox, just run-time disabled. They wouldn't have to maintain their own set of patches that could be broken by Firefox…

Why couldn't Firefox use Tor in the "private mode"? Wouldn't that be the ultimate private mode? It would also greatly help the Tor community, as it would "mainstream Tor" so it wouldn't have as much stigma as it does today.

You're making assumptions on what users use private mode for. I primarily use it for testing login/using alternate accounts without having my cookies set for development work, which means I would not want to be using Tor. Other users may just not want certain pages logged in their browser history.
Post reply on HN