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

Brave, the false sensation of privacy

ebin.city

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 501 posts

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#481

Post by BrendanEich »

meibo wrote: post #331
CodeGlitch wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I've also had Brendan Eich respond to one of my posts on HN - not something I'd expect from any other browser on the market. He understands techies because he is one. I wish Mozilla was headed by a techie and not a lawyer :(

Reminder that there's a reason Brendan Eich doesn't work for Mozilla anymore, and it's not just layoffs due to dwindling userbases. Half of their board stepped down when he was about to be appointed. Decoupling software from the people behind it may be a good thing, but I don't want to support people that work against my interests.

Reminder: making up slurs against me because you don't like something about me is lying, and you shouldn't do it.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#482

Post by BrendanEich »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #355
rchaud wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought of Firefox shilling crypto bux turns my stomach, so I'll have to disagree with you.

As others have said multiple times, you can turn off all that crypto stuff in brave and ignore it. They've found a unique way to fund the product, not at the mercy of Google which can only be a good thing right?

All cryptocurrency stuff is off by default. I personally think it's best to tell the truth and evaluate projects and products on their merit. Thanks for your support!

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#483

Post by jonathansampson »

freediver wrote: post #476
jonathansampson wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave does not touch first-party ads; you can do all of the first-party advertising you like. Unfortunately, whether the third-party ads are malicious or not is not up to the publisher. The publisher is simply asked to add a bit of JavaScript to their page, and that's it. Brave doesn't inject ads onto webpages; so there is no scenario where you (as a publisher) would have our ads displayed on your page (unless you, y…

Nice video, but it almost completely misses the point: Even if all ads on all websites were made in a privacy-respecting way, people would still use adblockers. This is because people simply hate ads in their browser. It is because they make browsing experience miserable. They add bloat. They distract from the content. They add cognitive overhead. They slow down browsing. They are literally unwanted guests in our bro…

Different people want different things; many people install ad-blockers because they don't like ads, period. Others install them because they aren't comfortable with the security and privacy risk. Quite a few people are conflicted when it comes to blocking ads, knowing that it cuts off the funding for content creators. Brave is for everybody; no ads by default, and privacy-respecting ads for those who would like to support content creators on the Web.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#484

Post by BrendanEich »

bambax wrote: post #35
roenxi wrote: post #26

The people arguing that Firefox has an edge because it maintains a separate browser engine (like the writer of this article) are going to have real difficulties making their argument. Ditto the attacks on Brave for not being private enough. The people who care about privacy should be more worried about getting caught in Google's web of properties than about privacy per-se - that company is bad news. And Firefox is mo…

You may be right, and you may not be. It has to be good that there are more than exactly one engine, it means there is a discussion, some level of "forced openness". That wouldn't be possible if web developers could simply rely on undocumented quirks of a sole browser. It's possible that FF will die. But I think that would be extremely sad. For one, Manifest V3 would be forced upon the entire web => no more uOrigin.

No, Manifest V2 support remains internally and for "Enterprise Chrome" customers. Therefore we at Brave have promised that we would support V2 on by default for extensions including uBO (not needed on Brave) and uMatrix. HTH

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#485

Post by jonathansampson »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #467
jonathansampson wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to have to help me understand how Brave's current ad model is at odds with protecting your privacy. Brave [does not] send any data to advertisers. That means no PII from the user, no meta data from the user, and no cohort ID or anything else for the user.

> Brave [does not] send any data to advertisers. What about Brave itself? Brave Ads offers a lot of IAB advertising categories for sale to advertisers. If everything is pushed to the client and happens on the client, how does Brave Ads even know which IAB categories might be missing (and not exactly for sale in its network)? How would an advertiser know if/when an ad was even served? The model still relies on assessi…

No, Brave (the browser) doesn't send user data to Brave (the company) either. Matching happens on device. Categories are enumerated in the regional ad catalog. Local, on-device machine-learning decides whether a given ad is appropriate for the user. The data which comes back consists of cryptographic attestations; no user data. See https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Security-and-pri... for more information. We have also added a way to anonymously detect conversions, such as when a user purchases a product or service after having viewed an ad-notification. This too relies on cryptography, and not user data. Although, if you purchase a product from an advertiser, you are likely already giving them some form of user data (e.g. Name, Address, etc.), but Brave doesn't have/transmit any user-data to ourselves or advertisers.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#486

Post by jonathansampson »

freediver wrote: post #479
jonathansampson wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The browser is secure "to begin with" because it is designed to adapt to the moving threat landscape of the Web. Attackers aren't static; we don't want to their targets to be static either. A browser that doesn't adapt rapidly, dies.

This is what the automatic update mechanism is for (and which should be opt-in as well like an OS would do it).

You don't want to tie everything to one, single update. That means you have to delay smaller filter-rule updates until you deliver larger app-based updates. Or, you have to force a restart of the app to apply changes to filter lists, which is also not idea. Having a component-based system, where items can be updated and managed individually, is far better for everybody.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#487

Post by BrendanEich »

minsc__and__boo wrote: post #357
jonathansampson wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the law; it's not Brave's design. Our design enables you to opt-in, earn, and give to content creators without having to provide any information. The law, however, requires and compels Brave to add KYC into the mix when you wish to self-fund or cash out. Anti-money laundering is not something we can or would circumvent.

Seems like a pretty important piece of information to share with potential users up front though, for something marketing itself with a privacy focus.

No, because KYC is not mandatory to use rewards and anonymously contribute to your favorite sites and channels. Only if you want to add funds or take out some or all of your revshare is it required. It's not required by default, which is why it should not be advertised as if mandatory. HTH

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#488

Post by jonathansampson »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #432
jonathansampson wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the law; it's not Brave's design. Our design enables you to opt-in, earn, and give to content creators without having to provide any information. The law, however, requires and compels Brave to add KYC into the mix when you wish to self-fund or cash out. Anti-money laundering is not something we can or would circumvent.

Lol. This is like Tesla saying regulations prevent them from releasing full self driving. Don't advertise something you can't deliver.

We deliver exactly what we advertise; users can enjoy the default ad-free experience, or opt-in, earn, and support content creators across the Web. Nowhere in our marketing or elsewhere do we suggest you can anonymously receive cash from companies like Amazon, Twitch, Walmart, etc.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#489

Post by annoyingnoob »

jonathansampson wrote: post #485
annoyingnoob wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brave [does not] send any data to advertisers. What about Brave itself? Brave Ads offers a lot of IAB advertising categories for sale to advertisers. If everything is pushed to the client and happens on the client, how does Brave Ads even know which IAB categories might be missing (and not exactly for sale in its network)? How would an advertiser know if/when an ad was even served? The model still relies on assessi…

No, Brave (the browser) doesn't send user data to Brave (the company) either. Matching happens on device. Categories are enumerated in the regional ad catalog. Local, on-device machine-learning decides whether a given ad is appropriate for the user. The data which comes back consists of cryptographic attestations; no user data. See https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Security-and-pri... for more information.…

> The data which comes back consists of cryptographic attestations; no user data.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what that means, other than data going from the Brave browser going to the Brave Ad network. And I cannot see or verify that data. I don't want a browser that is a browser and an ad network, in which case I don't need Brave.

I'm interested in how you define 'user data'. Do you mean PII? In my opinion, if I interact with the Brave web browser and Brave creates a log of that then that is 'user data', its not browser data or advertising data. PII is one kind of user data. Data I enter into browser windows is another kind of user data. My interactions with the browser, as generated by me the user, generate user data too.

Re: Brave, the false sensation of privacy

#490

Post by unityByFreedom »

jonathansampson wrote: post #488
unityByFreedom wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. This is like Tesla saying regulations prevent them from releasing full self driving. Don't advertise something you can't deliver.

We deliver exactly what we advertise; users can enjoy the default ad-free experience, or opt-in, earn, and support content creators across the Web. Nowhere in our marketing or elsewhere do we suggest you can anonymously receive cash from companies like Amazon, Twitch, Walmart, etc.

You don't have the ability to offer private money collection and your advertising should reflect that.
Post reply on HN