Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's what unethical A/B testing is.
" involuntary, unpaid guinea pigs. No consent. No opt-out" That sounds like all A/B testing...
Firefox's testing (aka studies) are opt-in, not opt-out.
Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
301–310 of 642 posts
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is impressive doublespeak. > This ... header ... will not contain any personally identifiable information > a seed number which is randomly selected on first run ... chosen between 0 and 7999 (13 bits of entropy) They are not including any PII... while creating a new identifier for each installation. 13 bits of entropy probably isn't a unique identifier iff you only look at that header in isolation. Combined wit…
> They are not including any PII... while creating a new identifier for each installation. 13 bits of entropy probably isn't a unique identifier iff you only look at that header in isolation. Combined with at least 24 additional bits[1] of entropy from the IPv4 Source Address field Google receives >=37 bits of entropy, which is almost certainly a unique ID for the browser. Linking that browser ID to a personal accoun…
One clarification:
- By default it's much more than 13 bits of entropy
- If you disable usage statistics then you are limited to 13 bits of entropy
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there definitive proof that all of the Google stuff is really out of a naked Chromium install? I remember reading stuff about it being impossible to wholly untangle Google's stuff from it.
This is my question as well. Additionally, I've wondered if there are non-explicit behaviors of the browser that are used for fingerprinting.
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/do...
"those binaries that cannot be removed do not contain machine code."
I'm not sure what's meant by them not containing machine code, but it does seem like some of the binary blobs are retained that can't be built from source or substituted.
Honestly, I'd just switch to Firefox to be safe, though Ungoogled-Chromium does automatically set a lot of sane pro-privacy defaults that you'd have to manually change in Chromium/Firefox.
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be evil... Until we are deployed enough that users don't have a choice... Now that Google has cornered the market for Internet browsing, they're using that foothold to change how it works to suit their dominance. This is why they are not concerned about per-site tracking that Google Analytics does, as long as THEY as a company have direct browser-based tracking, they no longer need to provide tracking services…
Why do people still dredge up Google's historical "don't be evil"? It's not been applicable for half a decade now, and even in 2015 when it was officially removed from the last company documents, it was already a dead phrase. Google had already cornered the market back in 2012, when it surpassed every other browser, with an absolute majority dominance (>50% market share) achieved way back in 2015. Google has been in…
Because of the deep irony? If you have a moto that binary and later decide to remove it, what is the world to infer?
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially given that MoCo just laid off employees), and Mozilla still hasn't kept up with promises they gave years ago (that Pocket is still proprietary being a notable and depressing example). Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, a…
> Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. These seem at odds with each other. If you want Firefox to be used, how do you suggest its development be paid for?
Donations are not used for Firefox development -- they go to the Foundation, not the Corporation.
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#306Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#307You should also donate to Mozilla because it’s an insanely good piece o software for the price!
Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially given that MoCo just laid off employees), and Mozilla still hasn't kept up with promises they gave years ago (that Pocket is still proprietary being a notable and depressing example). Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, a…
Do you care how Apple pays its executives when you shell out 3-4k on their laptops or 1-2k on their phones? The OP just said that Firefox is a great piece of software available for free, and they deserve to be compensated (in form of donation). Now, I'm totally on board with you that they waste money, that's not even debatable.
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Riseup is absolutely with Mozilla's mission statement, though, and all things considered pretty good: "Riseup provides online communication tools for people and groups working on liberatory social change. We are a project to create democratic alternatives and practice self-determination by controlling our own secure means of communications."
They have an actual anarcho-communist star in their logo and their website features revolutionary imagery and policy statements like "all labor is valued equally" and "the means of production should be placed in the hands of the people".[0] I'm sure it's a fine organization if you subscribe to their views. I do not, and I'd rather not fund them, directly or indirectly. [0] https://riseup.net/en/about-us/politics
I don't share their views, but I'm thrilled that their project exists and very happy with Mozilla donating to help improve their email client security, since it's a major player in the pro-privacy ecosystem. If I had to agree with the philosophical beliefs of everyone I gave money to, I'd starve.
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Btw, Firefox is too slow. Ahh, the good ol' "Firefox is too slow for me to consider it" statement. Is there any evidence that Firefox is slower then Chrome other than old lingering memories of Firefox being slow ten years ago? I have used both Firefox and Chrome and I can't subjectively tell that one is significantly faster or slower than the other. To be fair, I only have a handful of extensions and rarely have mo…
I love that Firefox exists and Quantum is an amazing step forward, but Firefox still regularly runs away with gigabytes of RAM and hung worker processes. I have no problem with long-lived Chrome sessions but I need to restart Firefox ~daily. It's not bad memories of 10-years ago.
And yet Chrome consuming huge amounts of RAM is an actual meme
Re: Google tracks individual users per Chrome installation ID
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
We thought Microsoft was evil because of how they treated their partners and competitors. We didn't consider that a greater evil would arise, and all it would take was a disregard of the sanctity of personal privacy.
To my knowledge Google still hasn't done anything comparable to the worst offenses of Microsoft in its prime. These "tests" don't really help though.
Eh. One of the things Microsoft was actually punished for was bundling IE, and it didn't help that they were actually hostile to other browsers as proven by the fact that their documentation pages would work if Opera faked the IE headers.
Googles pushing of Chrome and disregard for other browsers across their web properties comes dangerously close in my opinion.