271–280 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this "content" you speak of, that must be funded through advertising? I checked the internet, and have been able to find very little worthwhile ad-supported content.
You must be very selective. I'm curious how you'd feel if it turned out most of Ycombinator's successful ventures depended upon advertising; thereby supporting this very site and community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then again Apple has a track record and APIs to put forward. Just about every API in iOS puts privacy first. If you want e.g. location data, the API asks the user's permission -- including with Apple's own apps.
That's no different from every other major mobile platform. The other ones do one better and build their own apps entirely using the same APIs that third parties have access to, which is why Firefox exists on those other platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, for one, they could fingerprint your browser: https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Is that really done to any real extent? The majority of users will have a standard configuration anyway.
Most good paywalls that support metering will now use some kind of fingerprinting at a minimum.
"To enable Tracking Protection in Firefox 35 and later, visit about:config and set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled to true" Edits - This quote from the article is interesting, especially considering Google the worlds biggest advertising industry company also has a browser. "That Firefox is first and foremost a user-agent, not an industry-agent"
The thing I don't understand: why not just make the "Do Not Track" switch set this, as well as sending the eponymous header? The user has stated an intent to not be tracked... so help them accomplish that! (In the same sense, I'm surprised that "incognito browsing" windows don't implicitly download a Tor "component" and route through it, the same way DRMed elements implicitly download the Adobe DRM component.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, with all that wonderful "automated" malware checking Google is also now manually reviewing App. http://blog.lifars.com/2015/03/18/google-now-manually-review...
How does the addition of manual checks against the distribution policies change the fact that Google's malware checking is better than Apple's?
Nowadays both companies do a pretty good job vetting App submissions, though Apple also filters on quality (sometimes) where as Google does not, but that's within each companies respective philosophies, and can be considered a strength or a weakness, depending on your own philosophy.
But it seems likes the data set used was that of top 200 news sites. Its my experience that media sites have around 60% of the http requests made to third parties and hence the reduction you see in load time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author's point is threefold: 1) Firefox should be software that serves its computer user's interests. 2) The Mozilla corporation is pressured (to whatever degree) to turn Firefox into software that serves the entertainment and advertising and surveillance industry's interests. 3) Sometimes Mozilla bends to industry interests rather than user interests. This is a bad thing. When you excerpted that quote, you chang…
#2 comes from your own mind or other sources (DRM standards), not from the quoted material.
"[Mozilla's] leadership needs to recognize that current advertising practices that enable "free" content are in direct conflict with security, privacy, stability, and performance concerns..."
Not to be crass, but read between the lines. All statements have context. That one sits in the context of a world where browser makers have spent many years removing infoleaks from their browsers, much to the chagrin of advertisers and surveillers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the addition of manual checks against the distribution policies change the fact that Google's malware checking is better than Apple's?
I don't understand what makes you say that Google's malware checking system is superior to Apple's. Do you have a source for that? Do you have a source to the way Apple in general does their app vetting, or Google for that matter. At this point you are basically saying: "Google is better because I said so." Do you have evidence that Apple does NOT run an automated virus and malware scan, resource analysis, or any oth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's no different from every other major mobile platform. The other ones do one better and build their own apps entirely using the same APIs that third parties have access to, which is why Firefox exists on those other platforms.
iOS permissions give users far more control than Android. Internet Advertising now an unrvokable permission on android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what makes you say that Google's malware checking system is superior to Apple's. Do you have a source for that? Do you have a source to the way Apple in general does their app vetting, or Google for that matter. At this point you are basically saying: "Google is better because I said so." Do you have evidence that Apple does NOT run an automated virus and malware scan, resource analysis, or any oth…
Do you have evidence that Apple does? They have made no claims that they do, instead continuously pointing to human vetting as their filter on malware, which is laughable. We all know that unskilled contractors stepping through some policy checklist aren't a legitimate protection against malware, but it's enough to fool people like Gruber, many bloggers, and you 14 hours ago before I pointed out your mistake.
In any case, you made an assertion that Apple does NOT run automated scans, unlike Google. I asked for proof. Now you demand proof from me that they do. It doesn't work that way. You made an assertion first, you back it up.
My proof is in the result. AppStore has next to no malware on it. PlayStore (now) is also very clean and safe. Google achieved this through combination of automated and manual vetting. Apple is notoriously silent about their process, other than advertising their one USP, which is no longer unique, but given if we use logic, we must assume that both companies use similar tools to achieve similar results.
Your assertion that Apple is far less secure would suggest much more malware being live on the AppStore, and yet in my search on google I was only able to find a few older articles about researches being able to smuggle in custom written malicious code onto AppStore. Meanwhile, while searching for malware on iOS, google presented me this in a search result at some point:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/03/new-adware-found-in-google-...
That's just one example from 2015. I don't think it's fair to check back to 2014 and prior, as back than Google Play Store was basically Wiled Wiled West.