491–500 of 642 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actual list: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/components/google/core/...
Security flaw? Surely some entity is squatting youtube on some TLD?! If there is a country TLD of X where Google owns google.X but entity Y owns youtube.X then entity Y gets the X-CLIENT-DATA header information. See usage of IsValidHostName() in code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GDPR treats an IP address as personal data. No it doesn't. GDPR only treats IP address as personal data if it is associated with actual identifying information (like name or address). Collecting IP address alone, and not associating it with anything else, is completely fine (otherwise nginx and apache's default configs would violate GDPR), and through them basically every website would violate GDPR. Edit: and furth…
An IP address is itself personal data, it does not have to be associated with other personal data. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo... > Collecting IP address alone, and not associating it with anything else, is completely fine (otherwise nginx and apache's default configs would violate GDPR), and through them basically every website would violate GDPR. See my comment about consent not bei…
"The European Commission maintains this website to enhance public access to information about its initiatives and European Union policies in general."
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
"Home > Law > Law by topic > Data protection > Reform > What is personal data?"
"Examples of personal data
...
- an Internet Protocol (IP) address;"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I pay for Pocket Premium as it is wholly owned by Mozilla as a way of diversifying their income away from search and donations. I like and use pocket and get something in exchange for my money (which makes me more likely to keep a rolling payment going on). II know it’s not open source, but tbh that doesn’t hugely bother me given that Firefox itself is. Does anyone object to this indirect way of funding Firefox? D…
I've spent a lot of time considering Pocket Premium but the price point is just too high. Maybe if they roll in features from feedly and have a really nice RSS reader. I also hate spending money on news that isn't going to journalists.
TL;DR I think whoever posted that is trying to bury the UA anonymizing feature by derailing the discussion. What I'm seeing is an RFC for anonymizing parts of User-Agent in order to reduce UA based fingerprinting, which improves everyone's privacy, that's a good thing! Then I see someone comments how that could negatively impact existing websites or Chromium-derived browsers, comments which are totally fair and make…
After many years of testing HTTP headers, IMO this really is a non-issue. Most websites return text/html just fine without sending any UA header at all.
What is an issue are the various ways websites try to coax users to download, install and use a certain browser.
Another related issue with Google Chrome is users getting better integration and performance when using Chrome with Google websites than they would if they used other clients. ^1 Some make the analogy to Microsoft where it was common for Microsoft software to integrate and perform better on Microsoft Windows whereas third party software was noticably worse to integrate and perform on that OS.
This leads to less user agent diversity. Users will choose what works best.
UA diversity is really a more important goal than privacy, or privacy in Chrome. The biggest privacy gains are not going to come from begging Google to make changes to Chrome. They could however come from making it easier for users to switch away from using Chrome and to use other clients. That requires some cooperation from websites as well as Google.
Those other clients could theoretically be written by anyone, not just large companies and organisations that are dependent on the online ad sales business. It would be relatively easy to achieve "privacy-by-design" in such clients. There is no rule that says users have to use a single UA to access every website. There needs to be choice.
For example, HN is a relatively simple website that does not require a large, complex browser like Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc. to read. It generates a considerable amount of traffic and stands as proof that simpler websites can be popular. Varying the UA header does not result in drastic differences in the text/html returned by the server.
1. Recently we saw Google exclude use of certain clients to access Gmail.
Credits to the ungoogled-chromium project [0] for the patch [1] which is also used in Bromite since 15 February 2018 to prevent this type of leaks; see also my reply here: [2] [0]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium [1]: https://github.com/bromite/bromite/blob/79.0.3945.139/build/... [2]: https://github.com/bromite/bromite/issues/480#issuecomment-5...
This is the reverse ad blocker problem.
Just use firefox, where we can at least pretend that the full time paid contributors are not trying to shove Advertising and Tracking on us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Programmers should stop pushing buggy or incomplete software as is, and start releasing software that works If you demand a perfection-of-function guarantee from something as complicated as a web browser, you'll never get a web browser with more features than the ones released in the '90s (and I'm not even sure we'd be that far along by now). If I'm given a forced choice between "more privacy" and "the software eve…
> you'll never get a web browser with more features than the ones released in the '90s I would actively prefer a web browser that lacks the features added since the '90s.
Modern browsers for all their bloat actually have less features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes Reread my previous post. You didn't load it from a SERP. That's what AMP is useful for, instant loading from link aggregators. > AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics. How, especially considering that Google's browser does not share AMP URLs? Is RSS a problematic project? How about GTFS or microdata?…
> instant loading from link aggregators Per research tests which look at load times and abandonment, under 1 second has the same retention as instant. So, AMP provides no practical benefits here. > How [is AMP problematic]? A large number of electrons have been spilled on this topic. I recommend reading one of those. It really comes across as an attempt to argue in bad faith by ignoring these well-distributed (especi…
Citation needed.
> A large number of electrons have been spilled on this topic.
Most of those electrons have been spilled by people who do not understand what AMP does, which included you until you had read the GP post. Those arguments are nonsensical to somebody who does understand what AMP does.
> even worse to try and paint RSS and similar as harmful.
I do not think RSS is harmful, but your stated reasons for claiming that AMP is harmful apply equally well to RSS. Your argument is therefore inconsistent with itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Widevine CDM request is needed for the service to function, though they could certainly delay it until a website requires DRM. GDPR allows the use of personal data without consent when it is required to provide a service for the user. The personal data collected with the x-client-data header is not required for Google sites to function. Google uses the data to gain a technical advantage over other sites o…
Whether consent is legally required or not, as a user I want that service, whatever it is, to not work until I consent to the exposure of my personal data. Given that it apparently has something to do with DRM, I would be disabling the service anyway.
Lets not guess it, lets file a complaint, and see if we can get Google sued for n billions of euros.