41–50 of 249 posts
I don't understand why Location (and other data) is 5 times for the Google app for example. Can somebody explain the differences?
There are column headings that show the data is being used for different purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromium is open source, but almost nobody uses it. Almost everyone uses either of the proprietary forks, Chrome and Edge.
Not if you use Linux, and Chromium is also in the Chocolatey repo and Homebrew.
Also, this post is about iOS...
Is Google 'Do No Evil' dead?
Yes, officially almost three years ago. https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
Look at what the last paragraph says despite the title:
The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”
Controversial opinion: Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up: - Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually and click "save for future use". Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
Until it's not. Meaning, we don't know if there's a way yet to harm users, or we don't know if anyone is actually using it to harm users.
If it's harmless, don't collect it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's produced by a "Reputable" company and has a good update process. I can TRUST my software updates from brave. "Ungoogled Chromium", while FOSS, have no good update method, and since i'm not going to build it myself, I don't have the same level of trust that something malicious hasn't been implanted. Brave provides similar features to ungoogled chromium and I don't have to support Mozilla or Google and their pract…
There is a a lot of talk here about "Trust", that's somethings I cannot attribute to Brave. I am sorry.
Controversial opinion: Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up: - Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually and click "save for future use". Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
Seems hard to make the argument to make that browsing history is harmless, given how often it is used in police investigations and court cases.
Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not use a Firefox fork like Waterfox? That fixes a number of the complaints people have with Firefox while not pushing us towards a browser engine monopoly - which you do by using a Chromium based browser. Besides, the Basic Attention Token crap in Brave is kinda shady.
What's wrong with Firefox?
Firefox's internals are great -- it's never been faster or as stable, and for that we made real sacrifices like losing XUL extensions but increasingly I don't understand Mozilla's decision making.
EDIT: I understand many of the things I'm talking about can be fixed with about:config. I had a list of over 30 flags in my notes and it was becoming untenable to patch all my devices whenever a feature I needed was changed or removed. Whereas with Waterfox, I so far have only one about:config change:
dom.security.https_only_mode = trueControversial opinion: Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up: - Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually and click "save for future use". Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
Seems hard to make the argument to make that browsing history is harmless, given how often it is used in police investigations and court cases.