I liked that they advertised webextensions firewall. But I was not able to make it work and don't see that anymore
LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
171–178 of 178 posts
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#172What exactly do we gain by browsing more anonymously if we just read news or go on social media sites?
People profiling your interests, mental state, politics, religion, sexysl orientation, ..... You can deduce a lot with enough data.
how often is this data correlated with an actual person? or is this info collected in aggregate on a group of people?
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#173Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.
These are both interesting niche projects from a user privacy perspective. Is anyone who is more familiar with Waterfox and LibreWolf able to objectively expand on the differences between these projects? It sounds like the unsigned binary may be a maturity issue that will get tackled based on the mission statement(educated guess?). Would greatly appreciate anyone with more knowledge about these projects elaborating.
> interesting niche projects from a user privacy perspective.
While it's difficult to track Waterfox's stance, this is from one of the earlier blog posts on what appears to be a hot button topic for users:
I’ve never wanted or tried to have Waterfox appear as a privacy tool or anything more than what it is. That’s for hyper specialised tools such as Tor. People have extrapolated more from Waterfox themselves.
I never wanted Waterfox to be a part of the hyper-privacy community. It would just feel like standards that would be impossible to uphold, especially for something such as a web browser on the internet. Throughout the years people have always asked about Waterfox and privacy, and if they’ve ever wanted more than it can afford, I’ve always pushed them to use Tor. Waterfox was here for customisations and speed, with a good level of privacy.
I can respect what the community fights for, but I don’t think I can respect how they sometimes fight for it or how they act when they believe they are wronged. Harassment and foul words seem to be the normal, as I’ve experienced. As far as I’m aware, Waterfox has never been listed anywhere as a privacy tool, and rightly so.
Note the Waterfox commenter in this thread is not calling it "privacy" tool, while focusing on aspects that carry "trust". These are indeed distinct.
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Propaganda. Even if, a user toggle would have worked wonders.
Which is what ended up being implemented. That was a PR disaster on apple's part, but their motivation was genuinely good. They could have just let the phones power off randomly, like they were 5-6 years old -- android wouldn't even know about them anymore.
Random poweroffs could not happen, not with the current those devices are drawing.
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is what ended up being implemented. That was a PR disaster on apple's part, but their motivation was genuinely good. They could have just let the phones power off randomly, like they were 5-6 years old -- android wouldn't even know about them anymore.
Random poweroffs could not happen, not with the current those devices are drawing.
And what do you think happens when that currency level can’t be drawn from the battery? There literally were many reported cases of random reboots.
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sign example is exactly what the film industry does to notify people of filming activity inside an establishment. It’s perfectly reasonable. Using the example of sexual assault just makes the issue look more extreme than it is. You might as well say “By entering this building you consent to be murdered,” but we all know that’s taking the slippery slope too far. Usage statistics and bug telemetry isn’t the same a…
You don't need consent to film someone in a public space. It's done as a courtesy, not a legal requirement. My computer is not a public space and the software that is installed on it, and when, and the IP address used to do so, are private information. Exfiltrating that data without consent is a violation of my right to privacy, full stop. Nothing that is said, no notice that is provided, can change that. You could j…
The need to gain consent is highly dependent on what is being consented to.
If you invite me over for dinner I don’t need to get your consent to wash my hands or use your bathroom. That is implied by inviting me over to dinner.
That’s why I think the “consent to be murdered” argument is such a bad analogy. It assumes the slippery slope goes all the way.
Just because I think (e.g.) Homebrew’s analytics doesn’t need opt-in consent doesn’t mean I believe that all forms of analytics and data collection shouldn’t need opt-in consent.
I think that an application having a default that collects non-personal crash and bug analytics is acceptable, while an application that collects more detailed personal information isn’t.
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I really the troll, or those who bring down the only remaining truly libre, open-source browser engine over stupid nitpicky bullshits, while not contributing anything positive to improve on the status?
The point is, if you provide an option to turn off telemetry, it should be off. No exception. In this case of an airport connection requiring a registration page intranetwork, this occurs via first request through their proxy with header redirect. The point is, don’t lie about saying you respect privacy with half-baked options and telemetry for me but not for thee bs. If I turn off telemetry, you aren’t allowed to se…
There is a distinct difference between telemetry and the captive portal requests Firefox makes. The captive portal checks have nothing to do with telemetry and contain no payload, which is why they are not covered by that setting.
Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, if you provide an option to turn off telemetry, it should be off. No exception. In this case of an airport connection requiring a registration page intranetwork, this occurs via first request through their proxy with header redirect. The point is, don’t lie about saying you respect privacy with half-baked options and telemetry for me but not for thee bs. If I turn off telemetry, you aren’t allowed to se…
There is a distinct difference between telemetry and the captive portal requests Firefox makes. The captive portal checks have nothing to do with telemetry and contain no payload, which is why they are not covered by that setting.
Captive portal detection was only brought up by the non-constructive commenter and isn't part of the problem.
When the setting labelled "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" is unchecked, the browser still sends out technical and interaction data through parameters added to various browser-provided/generated URLs (e.g. search results pages from built-in search providers, Firefox documentation links provided by the browser, DevTools compatibility panel links to MDN, etc.), by sending out pings when hovering over or clicking interactive browser-native interface elements, and in several other ways.
In summary: that setting is non-functional and should either be fixed, re-labelled, or removed entirely.