51–60 of 77 posts
All these browser company talking about privacy and tracking, all the while letting Google dictate the development of their browser, is really laughable. No thanks. Not basing on Chrome should be the default if they truly care about such things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been using Vivaldi more and more on Android these days. Since the big update Firefox is literally unusable for some tasks. For example the other day I needed to switch apps to get a value to put into a form. When I switched back it reloaded the page, losing the form state.
Yep, Firefox android is impossible to use if you do anything non-trivial and has so many quirks. It's been over a year since the rewrite so I don't know what they're doing.
I've tried Vivaldi on all my devices for several months but it has several annoying quirks: - Videos are jerky compared to Chrome. It doesn't matter if hardware acceleration is on or off, and it's at least on macOs and Windows. - Scrolling is either slow (if hardware acceleration is off) or shows a blank page as you scroll (if hardware acceleration is on). Chrome works fine with hardware acceleration. - Caching is we…
Also it doesn't support touchpad gestures for forward and back navigation which as tiny of a hill that may seem to some is one I'm willing to die upon.
>at Vivaldi, we don’t track or profile you. Nor do we collect usage data. In fact, we believe that the unnecessary collection of data is dangerous and has no place in your browser. Great. Would be better if you also release Vivaldi's source code to public scrutiny instead of just expecting users to take your word for it.
Then I hope you'll also build it by yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically, it does send your URLs to Google. Maybe not all of them, but an unspecified amount of them. Also, Google pinky promises that the data they collect from this isn't used for tracking purposes.
> So basically, it does send your URLs to Google No, it downloads hashes from Google, and checks the URL locally against those. See https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing-works-...
It seems like it actually is way more private than I thought. FF downloads the database of flagged sites from Google and stores it locally (only partial hashes of URLs though). Only when a match is detected in the local database, FF sends the full hash of the URL to Google to double check, since the local database only has partial hashes to save space (so false positives are likely). It also apparently sends extra noise as part of the payload, so that the request isn't obviously tied to a single URL (in case Google is able to reverse the hash to track your browsing habits, or something like that)
That sounds pretty private to me. A side-by-side comparison of this implementation to the one in Chromium would be interesting. I wonder if browsers like Vivaldi go the extra mile like FF does?
(not: that post is over 5 years old, so it's possible that the implementation may have changed since then)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, Firefox android is impossible to use if you do anything non-trivial and has so many quirks. It's been over a year since the rewrite so I don't know what they're doing.
This has not been my experience. Firefox Android is perfectly functional, fast, and blocks ads too.
>at Vivaldi, we don’t track or profile you. Nor do we collect usage data. In fact, we believe that the unnecessary collection of data is dangerous and has no place in your browser. Great. Would be better if you also release Vivaldi's source code to public scrutiny instead of just expecting users to take your word for it.
Then I hope you'll also build it by yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So basically, it does send your URLs to Google No, it downloads hashes from Google, and checks the URL locally against those. See https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing-works-...
Thanks for the link, that explains it much better than the snippet in the post I replied to. It seems like it actually is way more private than I thought. FF downloads the database of flagged sites from Google and stores it locally (only partial hashes of URLs though). Only when a match is detected in the local database, FF sends the full hash of the URL to Google to double check, since the local database only has pa…
Even that's not quite what it says, as I understand things. When a partial-hash match is detected, FF asks Google for the list of full hashes that start with this partial hash, and then checks (still locally) against those. So as far as I can see, Google still wouldn't know which of those full hashes corresponds to the URL you're requesting.
(I have not examined the implementation personally, I'm just basing this off the post mentioned. But FF is open source, so if someone would like to check whether this is accurate, that'd be great.)
>at Vivaldi, we don’t track or profile you. Nor do we collect usage data. In fact, we believe that the unnecessary collection of data is dangerous and has no place in your browser. Great. Would be better if you also release Vivaldi's source code to public scrutiny instead of just expecting users to take your word for it.
Then I hope you'll also build it by yourself.
>at Vivaldi, we don’t track or profile you. Nor do we collect usage data. In fact, we believe that the unnecessary collection of data is dangerous and has no place in your browser. Great. Would be better if you also release Vivaldi's source code to public scrutiny instead of just expecting users to take your word for it.