101–110 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way more often than I should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half the data Chrome collects is harmless If true, that still doesn't negate the other half that is not harmless. More importantly, how about I get to choose what I consider harmless, rather than having a Silicon Valley advertising agency do that for me? Also, there's no way of knowing what Google shoves into the "other" category. Sunlight disinfects, even in Mountain View.
Fair enough. But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6 months ago, don't know how it performs now). There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6 months ago, don't know how it performs now). There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything i…
>There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point. That is not DDG's point at all. Their point is right in the linked tweet - "Spying on users has nothing to do with building a great web browser or search engine."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half the data Chrome collects is harmless 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.
Chrome's the fastest browser on the market. That, along with some nice marketing strategy is what makes it the absolute market leader. The reason Chrome is so fast, is most likely thanks to the performance (harmless) data it collects. Firefox may be proud of not collecting as much data, but (at least on macOS) they spend twice the battery to render twice as slow. Not saying you shouldn't be able to choose what data y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see some data to back your point. Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?
This is very common knowledge. https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&typ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a a lot of talk here about "Trust", that's somethings I cannot attribute to Brave. I am sorry.
What is the reaon?
"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way more often than I should.
A little far fetched, but if you're employed by one of those agencies, your boss (or bosses boss etc) can access _your_ data, find out how often you're googling basic information and use that information against you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Performance problems on macOS/Linux, Firefox seems fine on Windows but that's where I spend the least of my time.
I've been using firefox for years and I have no idea what these performance problems are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is kind of deceptive. Approving location data to be saved or used during a web search is not the same thing as approving location data to be used for advertising and product personalization. Same with contact information, same with browser history, same with search history and unique IDs. Also, none of that data is harmless. > I think DDG is exaggerating here Google shouldn't be basing advertising off of individ…
It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Hence, the interpretation that the data should be usable as Google sees fit.
Wait, why do you say that? There's nothing inherent to the way that assistants work that mean that they need full access to everything in my life.
Human beings are "AI complete", but when I go to the library and ask them to help me find a book, they don't demand that I show them my phone contacts first. Data access and intelligence are separate concepts.
And Google's voice assistant could figure out what phone number I mean when I say "call mom" without doing anything involving AI at all, because I actually explicitly put that information into my address book in machine-readable, labeled fields. The assistant doesn't need to have an advanced AI to solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't need to look at my search history.
Is there more context for this? I'm seeing an infographic sourced to "Apple App Store as of March 2021," but I don't own an iPhone so I don't know where this information comes from. Are these boxes permissions declared by the app, data collection as detected by some heuristic at Apple, or what?
Pretty much. My understanding is that they're self-reported (as opposed to inferred from eg SDK/API usage), but I haven't looked into it super deeply.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3600998/apples-privacy...