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

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 441 posts

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#291

Post by byuu »

ptomato wrote: post #189
byuu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. And I don't believe that's a fair thing to say with zero evidence to the contrary. Eich was a person that could have made the entire situation disappear in an instant by making a (completely meaningless given their history) matching donation to the HRC, and issuing a short post apologizing for his actions. Sure, many would see right throug…

> Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. You can differentiate I guess between "You see which way the wind is blowing, better do what needs to be done" and "Resign or we'll fire you" but that's really a distinction without a difference and would seamlessly segue into the other state, I expect. > but it would co…

> I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign.

Well, you're free to your own opinions (and conspiracies), but not to your own facts. Preface your statements with, "I believe he was secretly (fired)", and that's fair enough.

But us arguing about it without any evidence is basically Russell's Teapot.

> Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?

It would have certainly worked here. From when I was born until 2015, we went from 15% approval to 55% approval for marriage equality. We had several prominent republicans, and even a democratic president change their public views to support marriage equality. Eich had a good 6+ years since his donation, so it wasn't like his mind couldn't have changed during that time. I don't recall anyone on our side ever denouncing someone who announced they 'evolved' on this topic. So yes, I'm extremely confident most people would have put this issue to rest.

However, again, a man of principle shouldn't lie. That covers both lying about a change of heart, as well as lying about resigning instead of having been fired.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#292

Post by kuschku »

Karunamon wrote: post #85
Scarbutt wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't privacy a moot point when firefox's security history has been much worse than chrome? https://it.slashdot.org/submission/5553519/pwn2own-2016-wont...

This probably got downvoted for snark, but it's true. The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults). The worst Firefox might do is get your machine pwned.

> The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults).

Chrome is the one running any x86 binary the website presents it with, only trying to run a static verification that it won't do anything evil.

Chrome is far more at risk of pwning you (and NaCl sandbox breakouts have been quite common).

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#293

Post by kuschku »

hlandau wrote: post #143
shabbyrobe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A user agent switcher helps too. Google intentionally hobble their own websites (can't access search tools, for example) if you use Firefox, but changing the user agent made things work well for me. YMMV of course, but I used the "Android Phone" setting in the "Phony" extension for years and had far fewer problems than I had using a Firefox user agent.

>Google intentionally hobble their own websites (can't access search tools, for example) if you use Firefox Do you have more information on this?

Open Google Search in firefox mobile, and try to add a search filter.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#294

Post by noir_lord »

nikcub wrote: post #208

Removing Google's binary blobs is mitigating one issue, but replacing it with an entire binary blog from an anonymous github user might be introducing new ones. On that note - can you tell us more about the project? ie. if you plan on keeping this updated long terms (i've watched a lot of promising chromium forks fade after an initial big splash), what your plans are, if you'll you accept contributions, how the binar…

That kind of browser sounds useful, more so particulary on mobile devices Chrome/Android/Google is incredibly 'sticky' in that it tries to quietly log you in all the damn time.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#295

Post by kuschku »

lorenzhs wrote: post #245
Blackthorn wrote: post #140

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this remove Safe Browsing? Not a good idea.

Yeah, seems like it: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/commit/9163f6e... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... That is a very bad idea. I sympathize with the idea of the project, but please think twice before meddling in security things. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779990 I filed an issue to exp…

Then run your own safe browsing list.

Connecting to a foreign company in a country that directly threatened you with invasion and relying on that for webbrowsing is not acceptable.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#296

Post by [deleted] »

Zarkaos wrote: post #281
koolba wrote: post #280

Is there a browser build or plugin extension that has a separate cookie jar for each tab that follows the tab? My ideal browser has zero persistence and each tab maintains its own cookies. Links opened as new tabs would share the parent's cookie jar, but separate tabs loaded to the same page could both be logged in at the same time.

I think you'll love ghost browser ;) https://ghostbrowser.com/

[deleted]

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#297

Post by angry_octet »

anc84 wrote: post #226
angry_octet wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in the settings for Chrome. Settings->Advanced->Privacy->Content: Cookies->Keep until quit + exceptions you choose. Javascript->Deny all + exceptions you choose. When you browse there is a little icon in the address bar to whitelist a site. It is a bit of a pain at first but it makes things a lot safer. When you go incognito it will forget which sites you whitelisted at session end, so you are not enabling a si…

For people as conciuous as this, I highly recommend uMatrix. It is a switchboard that easily lets you control anything (from initial request to frames) per domain.

uMatrix is fantastic, though it has a relatively steep initial learning curve.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#298

Post by Pharylon »

Larrikin wrote: post #127
Pharylon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wish Firefox for Android played nice with other apps. I mean, I like that it has AdBlock, but no, Firefox, I don't want to open that YouTube link in Firefox.

Firefox includes the android app button in the URL bar for easily switching from Firefox.

I know. But I want to open it in the YouTube app in part because I live in a rural area with DSL. The YouTube app opens much faster. But that icon in the URL bar doesn't appear until the page is completely loaded. So it doesn't speed up the experience at all for me. I get to wait for the entire site to load in Firefox, then I get to wait for YouTube again once I click the button.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#299

Post by LinuxFreedom »

bad_user wrote: post #283
LinuxFreedom wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. Millions of Firefox users lost their privacy without ever being asked about that with the help of Firefox default settings. This long term collaboration with privacy-destroying ad tracking companies disqualifies Firefox as a privacy tool. BTW, yes, this post carries an unusual view of thing…

> Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. This statement doesn't make sense. All cookies can be tracking cookies and for example all session cookies are tracking cookies by definition. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're referring to third-party tracking cookies, such as those from Google Analytics, or Facebook, this is…

Denying facts and calling me silly are both not convincing arguments. I will ask you to repeat that insult when we meet in meatspace one day.

About your fact denial: Firefox does save cookies forever by default without asking users for permission about that, what enables tracking them forever. This is the opposite of proactive privacy.

This is factually true. It is not possible to "untrue" this fact. Everybody can check it.

What makes it even worse is that Mozilla is positioning itself as a "privacy aware" organisation, effectively brainwashing non-technical users with false claims about "privacy awareness".

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#300

Post by Pharylon »

Spakman wrote: post #254
enobrev wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently switched to Firefox on Android as well, specifically for uBlock Origin support, which has significantly improved browsing overall. Only issue I have is that default apps won't open for links. Otherwise I've been very happy with it.

As I have only just learned higher up on this page, FF has an Android button in the URL bar to switch from, for example, a Youtube page to the Youtube native application. I was missing this too!

Unfortunately, that button doesn't appear until the site is fully loaded, so if you really want to load YouTube in the app, you sit there staring at your screen for two or three seconds, angry at FF for not just doing what you want and opening the site in the native app. For those of us in rural areas with crap connections, it can be five or ten seconds for Firefox to get to a state that it decides the site is fully loaded and let you leave the app.

I tried using FF on Android for a while. If I saw a page with a link to a YouTube video, the fastest way for me to watch the video was 1) Copy the link to the clipboard. 2) Open Chrome and paste it in 3) Click the link.

Lots of apps are bad actors like this - Facebook, Twitter, etc. In those cases, when you click a link in a post or tweet, you go there in their own built-in browser, trying to keep you in their app. But, they give you the ability to turn it off. It's in the app settings if you look.

Firefox doesn't have this. You have to wait until the page is fully loaded, and then decide if it's worth your trouble to open it in the native app now. Most of the time it isn't, it would have been faster in the native app, but you're there now, so eh. For YouTube, it usually is. But it's just so hair-pullingly frustrating.

Post reply on HN