371–380 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. And most of website should not even need javascript but some simple extension to xhtml to allow interactive websites in a declarative fashion rather than having a Turing-complete language.
CSS is Turing-complete. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2300836 (2011) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10734966 (2015)
Third party cookies, and any way to fingerprint a specific user starting from high entropy user agents to screen resolution, font fingerprinting or canvas data, should be considered a breach of the browser security model. All sites should run in containers and no advertiser should be able to track you across sessions. When I want 3rd party interaction, I should need to opt in and connect the current site with Faceboo…
There are lots of "shoulds" in the world. People should be nice, not steal, etc. It seems to me, if users act differently, there "should" be a way to fingerprint them.
Heck yeah, I've been dreaming of this for a while. Or really, something that can work on _any_ website you configure it to work on, not just fb. Or specifically, I'd love one that worked for google search (not neccesarily all google products, which would be hard, but one which let me search without being able to tie me to my other internet use including other google products).
Checkout Ghostery. It does a pretty good job with blocking trackers of any type. Ghostery is owned by a company that is backed by Mozilla, and claims to not share any data with third parties.
Disconnect inteferes with a lot of websites from working, and I think (like I think Ghostery which works similarly) does not do the same thing(s) that Firefox Containers do. I actually didn't realize the general Firefox Containers feature existed, and will also explore that more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google didn't elect Trump
Yeah, the American people elected Trump in an extremely rare case of the public taking back the election from corporate behemoths. But let's pretend that Google hasn't had enormous sway over the White House and hasn't been rubbing shoulders with Obama and other Democrats [1][2][3][4]. Let's also ignore the fact that much of Silicon Valley publicly supported Hillary and opposed Trump, with big outspoken critics includ…
"How Facebook Helped Donald Trump Become President" -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/11/09/how-faceb...
"How Facebook ads helped elect Trump" -- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-facebook-ads-helped-elect-t...
"Here's How Facebook Actually Won Trump the Presidency" -- https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-no...
There is no such perception about how google "won trump the presidency".
Which is why I think that "all the focus on Facebook", despite the fact "Google tracking is so much more widespread"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but blocking third-party cookies does break a whole lot of sites. Apple can do this, because they have a limited yet consistent market share that mostly consists of their own customers. But Firefox? If they block third-party cookies and Chrome does not, they might just end up losing even more users.
What sites are broken by Safari because of its default cookie options? I haven't encountered any.
So, nothing you'd want to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google logins still work, this is a different kind of container from the Firefox container tabs. I use this feature with container tabs and it's fine. There are so far one or two sites I've come across that this breaks, neither of them anything I care about.
It doesn't work all the time. I tried it with Google login on Atlassian, it seems to rely on third-party cookies, and fails. There are a few bugs open on websites that don't work with this feature: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/FirstPartyIsolation#First_...
Container tabs works for me very well, so I don't see much point in switching over and dealing with little bugs like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand corrected, also I should’ve added “on Macs”. I’ve been keeping an eye on Doogie[0], but its maintainer doesn’t have the resources to maintain another build. Curious if anyone can weigh in with similar alternatives available on macOS. [0] https://cretz.github.io/doogie/
You're talking to the maintainer :-) Yeah, I don't use Apple products so looking for someone to do the work. In the meantime, I am not too familiar with mac alternatives, but these days CEF, QtWebEngine, etc aren't that difficult to use if you want to roll your own (mine is just Qt + CEF).
Concepts on which Doogie is built sound very reasonable and I’m pretty sure they inspired my current setup. Native approach to bubbles vs. workspaces is better than shoehorning containers and tree-style tabs into that with a bunch of extensions in Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CSS is Turing-complete. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2300836 (2011) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10734966 (2015)
So?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most good corporate environments should be controlling what plugins they allow users to install in their browsers. (For the few users we permit to use Chrome, for example, all extensions are disabled.) But again, the issue is not your specific configuration (or GP's specific configuration), the point is that Google cannot assume same IP or browser fingerprint is a definitive association of identity, whereas signing i…
> Most good corporate environments should be controlling what plugins they allow users to install in their browsers. For a very odd definition of the term 'good' I suppose that's may be the case. It's certainly not been in any place I've worked in the past 20 yrs.
But suffice to say, it's very common for Chrome extensions to be able to both modify any content on websites you view and read data you enter into them. Both adware and spyware is prolific on the Chrome Web Store, and it's the number one infection vector I see.
Controlling extensions is downright basic competency for network security. With regards to Chrome, I currently operate an outright block, though obviously we can whitelist extensions as necessary. (One thing Chrome does particularly well is their ADMX templates: It's easy to blacklist and whitelist extensions, and install them compulsorily for users as well.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps Firefox could fake thirdparty cookies instead of disallowing them.
Then you'd probably never pass captcha.
I make no claim that the above is a good idea. It is possible, but it strikes me there are unintended consequences that I won't think of.