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

Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 289 posts

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#131

Post by ampersandy »

chmod775 wrote: post #95
taneq wrote: post #79

I don't understand how this is related to ProtonMail. It reads more to me like "never use Chrome [if you care about all of your web content being sent to Google]". Sure, ProtonMail is likely to have personal, private stuff in it but so does a bunch of other things, eg. internet banking.

It's related because that translate feature was disabled for those languages, but Google Chrome decided to disregard that specifically on ProtonMail and send the whole thing to Google servers anyways.

Where does the post say anything about it being disabled for those languages or that Chrome "specifically" ignored this on ProtonMail?

It just says they had to turn off the suggest translations feature, which would apply to all sites/languages.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#132

Post by cromwellian »

cromwellian wrote: post #112

When I visit a website in a foreign language I've never translated before, Chrome asks my permission to translate the site, it doesn't do so automatically. You could argue they could give you more details on what it will do when you click the 'Translate' button, but to argue they shouldn't offer the feature as a permission-requested option at all seems pretty extreme. I read a lot of foreign websites, and the built-i…

Two downvotes for pointing out that it asks for permission to translate, and that the feature is pretty important if you're traveling in a foreign country and don't speak the language?

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#133

Post by tannhaeuser »

anfilt wrote: post #5
reaperducer wrote: post #2

I just don't understand how so many people in the HN community, who are so vocal about privacy, turn around and use Chrome. Don't feed the beast.

I have been using Firefox since version 1.0. I don't understand the desire to use google's browser. However, why would even trying view secure data in your web-browser... Not even just Chrome. Things may get cached ect... Although, Mozilla has been doing things that I find annoying at times. Like adding pocket ect... Little Rant Although, I have looked at some of the other forks. What I find more depressing is how fe…

Google also has additional power by simply not implementing things introduced by WHATWG participants. Case in point: the menu/menuitem elements which would have provided scriptless interaction in a limited way (removed from W3C HTML 5.2). Any small attempt to make the web more declarative by extending HTML is doomed since not essential because it can be implemented using JS.

WHATWG's specification process, putting the world's main communication medium into the hands of browser vendors with an interest to eliminate competition and define entirely new Turing runtimes (WASM), and advertisers who turn around and create competing mechanisms (AMP), then not actually ever delivering a standard (the "living standard" nonsense) is broken, and has been for a long time.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#134

Post by ntauthority »

raarts wrote: post #109
AlexCoventry wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the desire to use google's browser. It was the only browser with a decent Javascript sandbox, at least until recently. Wikipedia claims Firefox got a sandbox this month , but I think I've seen earlier claims: > Until November 2018, Firefox was the last widely used browser not to use a browser sandbox to isolate Web content in each tab from each other and from the rest of the system.[120][121]

Also it was the only browser where every tab ran in its own process so a crash would only take down that tab.

Microsoft's browsers got this functionality pretty early as well (I believe around the IE9/10 timeframe), though they of course had and still have numerous other issues that would make them undesirable for regular usage.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#135

Post by Dolores12 »

vtail wrote: post #66
reaperducer wrote: post #2

I just don't understand how so many people in the HN community, who are so vocal about privacy, turn around and use Chrome. Don't feed the beast.

Here is an alternative view from Theo De Raadt, OpenBSD founder: “[firefox catching up with chrome’s security] is lipstick on a pig”: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152872551609819

Chrome makes sure that no one get user data but Google.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#136

Post by rgbrenner »

anfilt wrote: post #68
nijave wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tinfoil hat off for a second it makes more sense Cloudflare and Google are backing these protocols because they're more efficient which means lower infrastructure costs. They both terminate traffic already so can already see everything regardless of the protocol used.

I am not the person you responded to. However, I would only be considering things that people in general are eager to use not just a few big companies. Most users of HTTP have never been too concerned with it's overhead. Except maybe the way cookies have been design. It definitely has problems, but most peoples problems are not googles or cloud flares.

Most users of HTTP have never been too concerned with it's overhead

End users complain all the time about latency. And that includes the latency to your small website hosted on a single server hundreds of milliseconds from your visitor... certainly more than it includes google's websites.

What you really mean is that small website operators generally don't care that their visitors are irritated by how slow their website is... and just brush it off and ignore it because they have no solution to the problem.

Maybe you should consider h2 as being for the benefit of visitors across the internet, and a benefit for those who care about performance.

It says it all that even though h2 is not required, small website have adopted it across the globe... now at 1/3rd of all websites, and growing.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#137

Post by xg15 »

marcinzm wrote: post #85

Chrome is fun, today I learned you cannot turn off auto-complete for a page in chrome. Possibly some really creative hacks can do it but those seem to be "fixed" every so often as well. Which is great when you're building a HIPAA compliant page and would prefer that people's medical information not get cached by chrome (and then uploaded to their cloud storage if you're logged in).

I remember reading that the Chrome team made a point of forcing autocomplete for password fields (out of some opinions about built-in password managers). But I didn't know they were expanding that sentiment to all kinds of autocompletion.

Not that this would surprise me with Chrome's general attitude...

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#138

Post by gundmc »

gaius wrote: post #125
gundmc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Google makes Chrome because they can default the URL bar to search on Google without paying Traffic Acquisition Costs (Google pays browsers _a lot_ of money to have Google be their default search). Google only makes money from Chrome by driving more traffic to their profit centers (like Search). And it works really, really well. Chrome itself is not monetized and does not collect client data. Please, provide…

Please, provide evidence to the contrary. Uhhh, this whole article is literally about Chrome exfiltrating personal data to Google... all the evidence is above.

No, it isn't. This isn't even an article. It's a reddit post from a French user who had configured Chrome to automatically translate French (this is not a default behavior) and was then horrified when Chrome tried to translate his web page.

Maybe Chrome incorrectly detected French as the language, but we have no way of knowing because they didn't post any screenshots or additional information about the alleged event.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#139

Post by xg15 »

eridius wrote: post #127
anfilt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been using Firefox since version 1.0. I don't understand the desire to use google's browser. However, why would even trying view secure data in your web-browser... Not even just Chrome. Things may get cached ect... Although, Mozilla has been doing things that I find annoying at times. Like adding pocket ect... Little Rant Although, I have looked at some of the other forks. What I find more depressing is how fe…

> Those protocols are a lot more complicated than HTTP. So it's much harder for a small group to implement them. Why does a small group need to reimplement HTTP/2 and HTTP/3? It's important that we have more than 1 or 2 implementations, but we don't need more than a small handful, and we definitely don't need every independent group reimplementing them. We just need enough that anyone who needs it has access to an im…

Because then you get more parts of your stack that you don't really understand how they work and are unable to audit.

We are basically doing with TLS. Which went fine - until people realized that one of the major go-to implementations of TLS contained years old unfixed bugs that could be remotely exploited.

Re: Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

#140

Post by xg15 »

anfilt wrote: post #30
dredmorbius wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What frequently happens is that a simplified alternative appears. HTML5 rather than XHTML, Markdown vs. HTML or LaTeX, HTML, originally, vs. SGML or Sun's ... proprietary hypertext system (Vue?). Arguably, replacement of much office suite software with Web technologies. Multics -> Unix.

This is true, but a web browser can't really make those choices without a breaking a lot existing stuff. The big problem is that we keep piling onto HTML, CSS, and JS. For instance if we wanted web apps it would have been better to make something separate. Instead we have taken HTML which was originally just a way of rich text formatting and have made into the beast that it is today.

My understanding was that this was the original plan for XHTML. Keep HTML 4.x around as a "legacy standard" for old content, make new developments in a new language with an architecture more suited for modern use cases.

Of course this would have required browser vendors to support two languages at the same time for a sufficiently long transition period, which was apparently too much to demand.

Post reply on HN