451–460 of 642 posts
I must be dense but I never see the `x-client-data` header in the request headers of the network tab in developer tools.
It seems that it does not send "x-client-data" header in private mode, but it sends it when browsing regular mode.
I must be dense but I never see the `x-client-data` header in the request headers of the network tab in developer tools.
sed -n '/headers\":/,/\]/p' example.com.har
ps ax |grep -o field-trial-handle[^\ ]*[0-9]
Also, can try typing "chrome://versions" in the address bar
https://superuser.com/questions/541466/what-is-the-variation...
https://www.ghacks.net/2013/04/05/field-trials-in-chrome-how...
Further reading:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/comp...
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/comp...
It appears that chrome based Edge does not send this header. I've switched to firefox for everything I can switch, perhaps it time to use Edgeium over chrome for anything else.
PII concept is not the same for everyone/everywhere. For GDPR we have: > Article 4(1): ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly , in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or…
This is why I consider the GDPR to be unrealistically broad in its definition of PII; it denies even innocuous feature-mode-distinguishing headers intended to allow for bug-identification of massively-distributed software installs. If I'm given a forced choice between "more privacy" and "better software quality" I'm going to lean towards "better software quality."
And I consider it far too narrow.
> If I'm given a forced choice between "more privacy" and "better software quality" I'm going to lean towards "better software quality."
Fair enough. I would go for "more privacy", personally. There is no technical reason why both of our preferences couldn't be honored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me too. Then a breach happens and someone with a straight face tells you: "we take your privacy very seriously", asking apologies, because the breach used some of your data to push some political campaign or to bother you with spam/extortions because that night you were watching some porn. Programmers should stop pushing buggy or incomplete software as is, and start releasing software that works. Otherwise upper leve…
> Programmers should stop pushing buggy or incomplete software as is, and start releasing software that works If you demand a perfection-of-function guarantee from something as complicated as a web browser, you'll never get a web browser with more features than the ones released in the '90s (and I'm not even sure we'd be that far along by now). If I'm given a forced choice between "more privacy" and "the software eve…
I would actively prefer a web browser that lacks the features added since the '90s.
TL;DR I think whoever posted that is trying to bury the UA anonymizing feature by derailing the discussion. What I'm seeing is an RFC for anonymizing parts of User-Agent in order to reduce UA based fingerprinting, which improves everyone's privacy, that's a good thing! Then I see someone comments how that could negatively impact existing websites or Chromium-derived browsers, comments which are totally fair and make…
If that's true then Google should be called out for their poor behaviour.
TL;DR I think whoever posted that is trying to bury the UA anonymizing feature by derailing the discussion. What I'm seeing is an RFC for anonymizing parts of User-Agent in order to reduce UA based fingerprinting, which improves everyone's privacy, that's a good thing! Then I see someone comments how that could negatively impact existing websites or Chromium-derived browsers, comments which are totally fair and make…
Except it does not affect Google, because Google has this install ID to use both for tracking and preventing ad-fraud.
Which means Google competitors are terribly disadvantaged, as they cannot use that.
Which not only reduces market diversity (contrary to TAG philosophy) but represents a significant conflict of interest for an organization proposing a major web standard change.
These issues are very relevant to the original proposal, especially in light of the fact that Noone outside of Google is terribly interested in this change. Any time a dominant player is the strongest (or only) advocate for a change that would coincidentally and disproportionately benefit its corporate interests, the proposal should be viewed very skeptically.
Everybody imagine going back 15 years and tell yourself that you're using a web browser made by the parent company of DoubleClick. Your 15 year ago self would think you're a moron (assuming that 15 years ago you were old enough to know what DoubleClick was).