101–105 of 105 posts
Nice to see Brave patched it though.
Rename thumbnail to favicon: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/commits/master/patches/c...
Then abandoned in favor of Chromium including favicons in the regular cache https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45954466
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You guys have favicons? I don't have any in my tabs, but maybe I have turned that of at some point. I'm using Mozilla Firefox.
Firefox and Safari both have favicons in the tabs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as you're on _my (online) property_ and using _my services_ I can of course see EVERYTHING you f do That's fine, but you are not allowed to send me malware, that runs on _my property_ and snoops on _my data_. Also data doesn't stop being mine, just because you have it. You also can't take photographs of random people and claim this is yours now. That's an important difference between the USA and European co…
Well, we'd probably agree on most things... and re the photography example, afaik model release forms work similarly in the EU and US, right? Now website code does typically run on your device, but I'd say that once you're a paid logged in user you clearly accepted to run it, under the conditions of it staying in its browser sandbox so... if you think it's "malware" then just stop being a customer. Otherwise software…
I consider fingerprinting my browser, by running programs and measuring the timings and characteristics of the browser to be a side-channel attack on the browser sandbox.
> Otherwise software has a right to monitor its own operation.
If websites would only "monitor its own operation", we would hardly have any discussion.
> if you think it's "malware" then just stop being a customer.
Easier said than done, when >90% of websites do this. Show me a mainstream corporations website, that work without Javascript. You can hardly pay for a train ticket and make an appointment to government services, without these crap.
Also there must be some rules what software vendors are allowed to do, since the average user can hardly reverse-engineer all the websites they (need to) visit. This is what regulations like GDPR try to enforce.
> and re the photography example, afaik model release forms work similarly in the EU and US, right?
It's not about contracting a model, it's about doing a random photoshot in public. People have the right to their own picture here, irregardless of who takes that picture and who posses it.
At some point we need actual consequences for sites that intentionally hide their tracking. It should be criminal. It is stalking and has real world consequences. Just because an exploit exists doesn't mean it should be used. That logic is like saying it is OK to break into a house because the lock on the door was weak. If we don't get real protections, at what point does it become justified to go offensive against s…
The only reason these things work is because we let our browsers silently execute arbitrary code. That logic is more like saying it is OK to enter a house because the owner sent you an invitation, then greeted you at the door and said "GO NUTS!".