Firefox and most other web browsers sell out your privacy

[Retro]

This developer, unixsheikh, has done an in-depth analysis on all the major web browsers along with some you've never heard of and found most of them wanting, very wanting when it comes to privacy. They just sell you out, no other way to put it.

Think you're safe when it comes to the privacy-touting Firefox? Think again. Mozilla go on all the time about their privacy focus, yet they're no better than Google, one of the prime movers in privacy invasions - they even admit it in their terms and conditions. Ages ago, I figured out that the much-vaunted Firefox privacy was a lie when I read that Google supports Mozilla financially. Now, this in-depth investigation has figured out the fine details of the privacy invasions by Firefox and many other browsers.

On the plus side, Firefox is so extensively customisable that, with some time and effort, it can be improved greatly for privacy.

Well worth a read and if this makes you feel uncomfortable, it should. Privacy in the modern world is a smokescreen.

In the past I have always supported Mozilla and promoted Firefox, but Mozilla has made some pretty controversial decisions as of late and I no longer feel that Mozilla is an organization that deserves any support. Not unless they change the way they conduct their business.

Firefox is promoted by Mozilla as a privacy-respecting browser, but this is highly misleading. Firefox "phones home" every time you start it up even when you have disabled telemetry and automatic updates of extensions. Domains such as mozilla.org, cloudfront.net, firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com (see: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1598562#c12), autopush.prod.mozaws.net, detectportal.firefox.com and location.services.mozilla.com are visited each time you start Firefox.

Choose your browser carefully

www.unixsheikh.com

 

[Digerati]

Sorry but that article holds no credibility at all and should be taken with a 50lb bag of salt.

Why? This one statement,

I know several other browsers exist, but if they are not mentioned on this list I have either not had a change (sic) to investigate them, they are closed source and completely irrelevant (such as Microsoft Edge or Opera), or they are not actively maintained, or they cannot perhaps be trusted for some reason or another.

Completely irrelevant? Come on? Can total bias be better illustrated? I think not. While neither Edge nor Opera hold large portions of the global market share, they both are much more widely used than some of the others he mentioned. Microsoft Edge, for example, holds twice the share of Firefox on desktops as of March 2023 as seen here. I'd hardly call that irrelevant. Opera beats out the combined "Other" which includes Brave.

That comment alone is enough to show the author's biases. But there are more comments, including this,

Both Microsoft Windows and macOS are highly controversial and completely untrustworthy operating systems.

Completely untrustworthy? Can you say, "Microsoft hater" and "Apple hater" any louder? And note Apple Safari has double the market share of Firefox too. Is that irrelevant too?

Microsoft is NOT trying to steal our passwords, full name, birth date, street address, bank account and credit card information, Social Security or Insurance Numbers, personal contacts, or read our emails. Nor is it trying to overwrite security certifications, redirect us to malicious sites, or take control of our computers to send spam or distribute malware, or participate in DDoS attacks against others. In fact, Microsoft goes to great efforts (very effectively, I might add) to protect that information. I cannot speak to MacOS, but I "trust" they do the same.

So many just don't understand the difference between "security" and "privacy". The difference is HUGE! These same people have no problems willingly compromising their own privacy (AND SECURITY) with their cell phones. For example, on our PCs, Microsoft does not know our real name or our street address. They don't know our physical location. In fact, with an Ethernet connected computer the closest Microsoft knows where we are physically located is our ISP's POP (point of presence). The POP is the physical locations where our ISP connects our computer to the Internet backbone. In my case, that is 6 miles away on the other side of town.

On the other hand, our ISP already knows our home address, our real and full name, birth date, and our billing information too. They also know every single website we visit and what we did while there, and they can easily connect that personal information to our browsing activities - then sell it to who knows who? Talk about privacy AND security issues!

And our cell phone carriers are even worse! They also know our home address, our real and full name, birth date, and our billing information. BUT, they also know who we have talked to and texted. BUT WORSE STILL, our cell phone carrier knows exactly where we (or our children!) are standing to within a couple meters. They know the store we are in, the aisle and even the products in the aisle we are standing in front of! They know where we've been, how long we were there, the direction we are heading now and how fast we are moving!

Then of course, there's Google and Facebook - companies who work on the premise of learning everything about us and using (and sharing and selling) that information for their profits - and sites where people willingly provide everything there is to know about themselves, and more.

Frankly, when it comes to privacy concerns, Microsoft is the least of our worries.

The author is 100% correct when he claims that browser developers take advantage of their users to earn revenue. He is also correct to say that many, if not most need to be more transparent (MUCH MORE transparent!!!) about the data they collect, and what they then do with that data.

Users must be aware that ALL browsers collect data. Period. The developers of these "free" programs need to feed and shelter their families too. Most just need to be more honest and open about how they go about doing that. And that should be the author's message - not his clearly biased, slanted and irrelevant, personal opinions.

 

[Retro]

No, the article isn't simply opinion, I'm surprised you're claiming that.

Regardless of any bias, he's presenting hard evidence of the phone home telemetry going on behind the user's back, even when it's supposedly turned off, so you can't argue with that.

And yeah, a lot of stuff is "free" because we're the "product", eg Facebook. If it wasn't like that, we'd have paywalls everywhere.

 

[Digerati]

No, the article isn't simply opinion, I'm surprised you're claiming that.

Where did I say that? I didn't. So I am disappointed you would misrepresent a poster's comment like that.

"IF" it was "simply opinion" I sure would not have made the critical points,

The author is 100% correct when he claims that browser developers take advantage of their users to earn revenue. He is also correct to say that many, if not most need to be more transparent (MUCH MORE transparent!!!) about the data they collect, and what they then do with that data.

so you can't argue with that.

I didn't. In fact, I agreed with him when I clearly said,

Users must be aware that ALL browsers collect data. Period. The developers ... need to be more honest and open about how they go about doing that.

 

[Retro]

Where did I say that? I didn't. So I am disappointed you would misrepresent a poster's comment like that.

Dude, chill, you said it right in your last sentence:

not his clearly biased, slanted and irrelevant, personal opinions.

And the other points, so what exactly, are you complaining about with this article? You're somehow disparaging it while agreeing that he's making valid points, so I don't get where you're coming from.

I'd appreciate it if when you reply to me from now on if you could please make your arguments in a concise way in just a few sentences as I don't have the time or patience to read a wall of text and start taking it all apart to reply to all the different points. This goes for anyone.

If you wish to break my server with a wall of text in your usual style to others, I'm fine with that.

 

[Digerati]

I did not say, suggest, imply, or infer the article was "simply" anything. I especially did not suggest it was just his "simple opinion". It clearly was considerably more that.

I'd appreciate it if when you reply to me from now on if you could please make your arguments in a concise way in just a few sentences as I don't have the time or patience to read a wall of text and start taking it all apart to reply to all the different points. This goes for anyone.

FTR - nothing - not one single word in my post was directed at or a reply to you. I clearly and "simply" was commenting on the article. I would have replied in the exact same way regardless who posted it.

And I'd appreciate it if when you reply you would not misrepresent what posters say, then post criticisms based on that misrepresentation. That is misleading and inconsiderate at best.

And the other points, so what exactly, are you complaining about with this article? You're somehow disparaging it while agreeing that he's making valid points, so I don't get where you're coming from.

My apologies. I thought I was quite clear. I am sorry it is not understand that someone (you, me, anyone) can agree with part of an article, but disagree with other parts. It makes no sense, to me, that it must be an "all or nothing" scenario.

FTR, I agree, and said I agreed with his comments about browsers collecting personal data and I agreed they must be more transparent. But I also disagreed with his clearly biased viewpoints that add nothing to the point he was trying to make.

As far as my walls of text, you knew my posting style before you invited me to join you here. I see no reason to change because no you don't like it. You are welcome to ignore and not reply to them. In fact, if you are going to misrepresent what folks post, maybe ignoring them would be a good idea as it would save so much of your precious time by not having to read them, or reply to them. If what I say has the unfortunate and unintentional consequence of offending another poster they surely can report it.

I will take my leave now, unsubscribe to the forums and promise to bother you no more. But first, I will thank you for reminding me that opposing viewpoints to yours (even when not directed at or in response to you) are not welcome here. I had forgotten that. My bad.

Have a good day.

 

[Retro]

hmmm... drama much?

I'm not misrepresenting you and have no wish to. Misunderstandings both sides perhaps? Could be. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of "misrepresenting" you as that implies a deliberate act, which isn't what I do.

As far as my walls of text, you knew my posting style before you invited me to join you here. I see no reason to change because no you don't like it.

Don't be an ass. So, just because I knew you beforehand doesn't mean I can't bring it up sometime later if I feel a certain way about it, especially when this is my house, ok? And I said this goes for others too, so it's not just directed at you. And for my part, I'll try not to write walls of text back to you either. Gotta be fair, right?

I will take my leave now, unsubscribe to the forums and promise to bother you no more. But first, I will thank you for reminding me that opposing viewpoints to yours (even when not directed at or in response to you) are not welcome here. I had forgotten that. My bad.

That's your choice. I invited you over ages ago, haven't rescinded that invite, haven't threatened* you with any sanctions and am not doing so now. You're welcome to stay and take part as often as you like in as many threads as you like, but I'm not gonna beg you to stay either.

Sure, people can have opposing views to mine and you well know that, but for some reason it's always sparks when we have a conversation, with you misunderstanding me and getting heated towards me and I do think I'm being reasonable with you. Perhaps I misunderstand some of what you say sometimes, too.

I never see you be this difficult with others, but for some reason I get it in the neck. That's really annoying, I can tell you.

*And believe me, as my mods know, I'm not shy about applying sanctions and bans to real trolls messing up my forum as I've had to do recently and in the past. I'm glad to say I know you're not one of them, no matter our differences, especially as I've known you for so long, so we're still good. Please take this in the positive spirit in which I'm saying it.

 

[Digerati]

I'm not misrepresenting you and have no wish to.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of "misrepresenting" you as that implies a deliberate act, which isn't what I do.

Sorry, but you did. You said,

No, the article isn't simply opinion, I'm surprised you're claiming that.

I never claimed it was simply opinion - it clearly wasn't as it included technical facts too - which I acknowledged!

Then you did it again when you claimed I said it my last sentence. That was another misrepresentation because I also said he presented a lot of other facts- including facts I agreed with. In other words, the article is NOT just "simply" him expressing his opinion - as YOU CLAIMED I said.

What is most telling here is your argument in your replies-which is about you opposing my opinion about that article. Clearly, people cannot have opposing views, as you just claimed above. At least not without you challenging and criticizing them.

You were even critical of me for not accepting the whole article as is! Instead, you questioned why I would "disparage" parts of it while agreeing he made some valid points too.

Now you accuse me of "sparks" when not a single word in my post #2 above referred to you, was directed at you, implied, inferred, or even hinted in any way any opposing view to anything you said.

In fact, I AGREED WITH YOU - and also said, that "all" browsers collect user data and use it ways we did not authorize. But you took "personal" offense with me because I did not like "parts" of the article you posted - even though everything I said was directed at the author of that article, and not you.

Yes, we seem to butt heads. But it takes two to tango. I did not object to you posting that article. But you sure objected to me posting my opinion about parts of that article. Sorry, but I feel nothing "positive" about it.

this is my house

my forum

Well I sure would like this to stop now and move on. But, as you have made it clear, this is "your house" and "your forum" so the last word is yours too.

 

[Crims]

Neutral view: Retro is 100% correct. I know evasive gatekeeping, and this is simply sitting on your desired opinion, regardless of Retro. I agree with the author, especially the opinionated tone the article has.

 

[Digerati]

Neutral view: Retro is 100% correct. I know evasive gatekeeping, and this is simply sitting on your desired opinion, regardless of Retro.

That's a neutral view? Umm, okay.

So are you suggesting I should change my opinion about that article because Retro disagrees with me?

If you don't mind, let's recap my concerns. The thread title is about "Firefox and most other browsers". The article title is "Choose your browser carefully".

So is it your opinion too that Microsoft Edge and Opera are "irrelevant", as the author claims? Even though Edge has twice the market share as Firefox?

Is it your opinion the author's claim that "Microsoft Windows and macOS are highly controversial and completely untrustworthy operating systems" is relevant and applicable to browser privacy concerns?

Do you believe those are not biased viewpoints?

 

[Geffers]

Sorry but that article holds no credibility at all and should be taken with a 50lb bag of salt.

Why? This one statement,


Completely irrelevant? Come on? Can total bias be better illustrated? I think not. While neither Edge nor Opera hold large portions of the global market share, they both are much more widely used than some of the others he mentioned. Microsoft Edge, for example, holds twice the share of Firefox on desktops as of March 2023 as seen here. I'd hardly call that irrelevant. Opera beats out the combined "Other" which includes Brave.

That comment alone is enough to show the author's biases. But there are more comments, including this,

Completely untrustworthy? Can you say, "Microsoft hater" and "Apple hater" any louder? And note Apple Safari has double the market share of Firefox too. Is that irrelevant too?


And our cell phone carriers are even worse! They also know our home address, our real and full name, birth date, and our billing information. BUT, they also know who we have talked to and texted. BUT WORSE STILL, our cell phone carrier knows exactly where we (or our children!) are standing to within a couple meters. They know the store we are in, the aisle and even the products in the aisle we are standing in front of! They know where we've been, how long we were there, the direction we are heading now and how fast we are moving!

Then of course, there's Google and Facebook - companies who work on the premise of learning everything about us and using (and sharing and selling) that information for their profits - and sites where people willingly provide everything there is to know about themselves, and more.

Frankly, when it comes to privacy concerns, Microsoft is the least of our worries.

The author is 100% correct when he claims that browser developers take advantage of their users to earn revenue. He is also correct to say that many, if not most need to be more transparent (MUCH MORE transparent!!!) about the data they collect, and what they then do with that data.

Users must be aware that ALL browsers collect data. Period. The developers of these "free" programs need to feed and shelter their families too. Most just need to be more honest and open about how they go about doing that. And that should be the author's message - not his clearly biased, slanted and irrelevant, personal opinions.

I reckon it was an excellent article and give the 50lbs of salt back to you.

If you are talking of security the only way one can verify the claims is by checking the code, as microsoft and apple are closed source they cannot be verified so, although maybe irrelevant is not the best word, they are really when discussing security.

Not many have the skill to verify all the claims made, the author of this article did a very good job of outlining, what he pointed out on a couple of occasions, was his opinion.

You do of course highlight the other potential security issues surrounding the likes of Facebook and Google and of course our trust in mobile phones. I do not do any financial dealings via my mobile, it may well be safe but I am not confident. On a decent sized computer I can check the padlock then the certificate so tend to feel happier with that, plus, at my age difficult to read a mobile screen

All in all great article made with the best of intentions and @Digerati makes some valid points. In the end we make our own choice.

Geffers

 

[Digerati]

I'll take back 25lbs but not all 50. I mean seriously, how can Edge be "irrelevant" if it has twice the market share of FF? That clearly was a biased comment in a technical article, made no sense, and was hardly helpful to readers.

If you are talking of security the only way one can verify the claims is by checking the code, as microsoft and apple are closed source they cannot be verified so, although maybe irrelevant is not the best word, they are really when discussing security.

"IF" discussing "security" in general, then I would agree 100%. But that article is not about "security". It is about browsers violating our "privacy". BIG DIFFERENCE! Microsoft is not collecting or selling our passwords, DOB, contacts, real names, billing information, addresses, etc. If they were, that would be a serious "security" violation for which someone should be taken out back and shot - with me firing the first shot. Nor is Microsoft or Apple stealing our files, corrupting our systems, or infecting our systems with malware. Those are serious "security" issues too.

Browsers (the topic of that article and this thread) are collection information on which sites our IP address visits and information we provide on those sites. That is a "privacy" issue if they sell or give that information away. It is NOT a "security" issue since that information can NOT be used to personally identify us by name and physical address.

So,

If you are talking of security

That's the point. We are not. Security is NOT the same thing as privacy - despite what some may think, or worse, what some folks want the rest of us to think - especially when it comes to Microsoft. No bad guy can use the information Windows or MacOS collects to learn where we (or our children) live, our bank accounts, SSNs, etc.

Facebook and Google are not, by themselves, "security" threats. The problem with those is how willing some of their users are to post very personal information about themselves - including their real names, where they live, go to school, work, or had for breakfast. Some even post where they are going for dinner tonight, or that they are going on vacation for the next week and the house will be empty during that time.

the best of intentions and @Digerati makes some valid points. In the end we make our own choice.

Some of the information is great and I hope it was presented with the best intentions. I agree, that in the end we make our own choice. But in order to do that properly, users, or in this case, reader need to have "all" the accurate and unbiased information they need to make wise decisions. That article is sadly lacking in that area - and that is because of the clear biases of the author.

 

[Retro]

@Digerati more ranting and no acknowledgement of my goodwill statement to you? If you need reminding, it's this one:

*And believe me, as my mods know, I'm not shy about applying sanctions and bans to real trolls messing up my forum as I've had to do recently and in the past. I'm glad to say I know you're not one of them, no matter our differences, especially as I've known you for so long, so we're still good. Please take this in the positive spirit in which I'm saying it.

That's a real stinking attitude you've got there, my friend.

You haven't conceded a single thing, even where I've linked to what you've said or suggested mutual understandings. Nah, you just carry on in the same vein and I'm really sick of it.

And you know, I really can't be bothered to pick though what you said line by line and clarify or rebut it as I know it all goes down a never ending rabbit hole with you. It would make for a really long post too.

Well I sure would like this to stop now and move on. But, as you have made it clear, this is "your house" and "your forum" so the last word is yours too.

Then stop and move on. Be the helpful and knowledgeable member I know you can be instead of giving me an almighty headache every time. Not gonna happen though, is it?

You also seem to have missed the point of why I said this is my house. I just asked you for something reasonable is all, to make for more succinct posts when replying to me. You don't visit someone's house and shit on the floor do you? No, course not. Don't do it here either. You attitude to me seriously stinks.

 

[Retro]

I do not do any financial dealings via my mobile, it may well be safe but I am not confident. On a decent sized computer I can check the padlock then the certificate so tend to feel happier with that, plus, at my age difficult to read a mobile screen

I agree, no sensitive financial transactions on my smartphone - and that's an iPhone which is more secure than most Androids, too.

Example, during the covid era, I was sent a paper check for a refund / insurance claim, something like that. I didn't wanna go to the bank and saw that the banking app allowed one to take a picture of the cheque and bank it that way. Tried it, didn't work. Tried six ways to Sunday with different angles and lighting, but I couldn't get it to accept that cheque. Very frustrating. I ended up going to the bank after all and cashing it there.

I must admit it was handy having the app on my smartphone and kept it there for a while after that, but in the end, I just wasn't comfortable with it so removed it.

The main problem is that the iPhone is out "in the wild" with me as it were since it's mobile and thus more prone to physical attack than a PC in my home with 2FA enabled. Now, if I was a businessman that could really use an app like that, I'd probably take a calculated risk in having it installed. It all depends on the precise details.

 

[Digerati]

You haven't conceded a single thing

Huh? Concede to what? That the article is 100% correct? It is not. That I am totally wrong and you are totally right? That you are right to be surprised someone might have a different opinion?

You complain when I post a wall of text, then when I don't reply to something you said, you complain that I did not acknowledge your "goodwill" - goodwill intermixed with name calling and personal criticisms. Your entire post #13 is nothing but a personal attack on me.


You tell someone not to be an "ass", accuse them of having a "stinking attitude", then expect them to praise your platitudes? At the same time, you misrepresented me again by claiming I didn't acknowledge our "mutual understandings". That's a total falsehood, dude!

You accuse me of more ranting - then you submitted an entire post/rant about me not agreeing with you - which wasn't true! It all would have stopped at post #2, if not for you.

I conceded and I took back 25lbs of salt. I said - repeatedly - AND AGREED WITH YOU the article contains some good points about browser privacy - or the lack thereof. I agreed with you that ALL browsers are to blame and that companies need to be more transparent.

Where are your concessions? There aren't any because you want it all or nothing.

You criticized me because I didn't accept the entire article as gospell.

You expect me to accept the author's claim that Edge is "irrelevant" even though it has twice the market share of FF.

You expect me to accept the author's claim that "Microsoft Windows and macOS are highly controversial and completely untrustworthy operating systems" and consequently are relevant and applicable to his browser privacy concerns.

At least @Geffers has the huevos to say I made some good points. And I appreciate that.

You also seem to have missed the point of why I said this is my house. I just asked you for something reasonable is all, to make for more succinct posts when replying to me. You don't visit someone's house and shit on the floor do you? No, course not. Don't do it here either. You attitude to me seriously stinks.

Please read your first reply to me above. Did you ask me to clarify anything? Did you ask for "something reasonable"? Did you ask for me to be more succinct? No. You said you were "surprised" I made a claim I didn't even make!

Do you not see that as condescending? Like a parental figure admonishing a child for some wrongdoing by saying "I'm surprised at you!"? Only in this case, there was no wrongdoing. The child did not do what he was accused of.

In your next reply, after I did further explain and pointed out parts I agreed with, you criticized me for not agreeing with the whole article.

Yes, I am repeating myself but I find myself defending against the same, repeat accusations.

****

Now, Retro, I am sorry. You are right. We do have a long history going way back, and mostly on the same side. I would love to get back to that and move on from here, sticking to the technical context and end this back and forth now.

So to that,

I agree, no sensitive financial transactions on my smartphone - and that's an iPhone which is more secure than most Androids, too.

Example, during the covid era, I was sent a paper check for a refund / insurance claim, something like that.

I do not trust my smartphone for any banking tasks. The problem is, smartphones are fragile devices where, if broken, can takes days or longer to get back on line. And they have been known to get kidnapped, or grow legs and run away where they could fall into the wrong hands.

I sadly discovered my last smartphone refused to stay on the back bumper of my truck during a 6 mile ride to the bike trail. Oddly, I found the rubber "skin" case the phone was in by the curb just down the street. But the phone itself was no where to be found. If only I set my keys on the bumper too when I was loading up my bike. Hindsight is 20/20, right? Or at least should be.

My insurance company has a nice deal where they refund a portion of our premiums if we have no reported claims. Even though I have repeatedly told them to apply those checks to my next bill (an option they offer, no less) they still send me a check. So I end up installing my bank's smart phone check deposit app, make the deposit, then uninstall the app.

Not sure why yours failed. Mine (Wells Fargo) is simple. It first asks for login credentials. Then it asks for permission to commandeer the phone's camera. Then it asks to see the front of the check, it automatically zooms in and takes the photo, confirms it was properly recognized, prompts to turn over the check and automatically takes a photo of the back. Then I get a notice it has been deposited. I was amazed how easy.

It then says to hang on to the paper check for 5 days to ensure it clears. But I immediately went to my computer, logged in and there the deposit was (with images of the check) credited to my account! I am still mad my insurance co. sent me a check, but happy how easy it was to deposit it electronically.

Since we are so far OT anyway, and speaking of checks; I just wrote my third check in the 3 years. And all three were to the same place - the Nebraska DMV to renew the plates on my truck - all because they charge an extra $6 "processing fee" to pay with plastic.

 

[Retro]

Oh man Dig, another super long post, my head hurts! I'm not gonna go into every little detail, but hopefully I'll capture the gist of it and I think we're good.

Let's start with this positive comment:

Now, Retro, I am sorry. You are right. We do have a long history going way back, and mostly on the same side. I would love to get back to that and move on from here, sticking to the technical context and end this back and forth now.

Yeah, great. I dunno what the disagreement's about, really, and I do value your technical knowledge and willingness to help people with their techy problems. That's always come from a good (and nerdy) place that I appreciate. Best advice I can give you regarding me to help keep things between us running smoothly: I'm not your enemy and never have any bad intentions regardless of how things may seem in the moment, but can perhaps be a bit of a pita (maybe)...

I didn't agree with every single detail of that article either (I can't remember what they were without looking it over unfortunately) but the main point of how the various browsers sell us out is spot on, with the big shocker being Firefox. It was that last revelation that really motivated me to create this thread and spread the knowledge. Let's put this one down to a mutual misunderstanding to hopefully draw a line under it. It's true, you have agreed on certain points, thankyou, appreciated.

---

The Smartphone

Being a couple of years ago, I can't remember all the details, but the basic problem is that the banking app's OCR couldn't read the cheque, hence giving some cryptic error message about an invalid image, no matter how I framed it or changed the light. It gave the same error message if I took a picture of a blank piece of paper lol. Something well screwy there, I can tell you.

Your unfortunate example of losing your smartphone is a great reason for not doing banking on it and I'm sure there are lots of others if we think about it. Thankfully, I don't have a pressing reason to run a banking app on it, just convenience, so I'm not forced to chance it and hence don't. Odd how your phone jumped out of its case as they're supposed to hold them securely.

As we know, every computer has its limits no matter how secure, even the Pentagon's, so in the wrong hands, an attacker will break into it, it's just a matter of time. Having a "secure" iPhone like I have won't help either if they're determined enough, or if there's a newly discovered flaw on it that's unpatched, will make it quite easy. Unsettling, isn't it?

Since we are so far OT anyway...

Oh yeah, indeed don't worry about that here, this is NerdZone where the conversation flows freely and naturally like real life. It's actually baked into the rules.

They really are taking the p* to charge extra for card transactions, I agree. One of the things that get me is when buying A/V software from Amazon, it's something like £20 to buy the physical pack with just the activation code on it and no disc that must be mailed to me via superfast sameday shipping (extra ungreen) cuz I have Prime, and £70 for an online code with instant access! Whatever happened to being green to save our precious planet? Hypocrisy much? They're literally charging a massive premium for convenience and quick delivery. And this product was Bitdefender, too. I've seen similar for other products as well, like Steam games.

Ok, minor book from me as well, apologies.

 

[Retro]

More evidence that Firefox is selling out your privacy.

It's also really important not to give this organization any money in donations as they get a staggering $500m every year from Google - the biggest privacy busters on the planet - and they're not really non profit, either.

Unfortunately, all the major browsers sell you out as we've seen in this thread. The difference with Firefox is that it's easier to strip out the tracking if you put time and effort into it. However, remember that with every update, you have to check that it hasn't been turned back on and that new tracking hasn't been added. Sounds like a lot of hassle to me that just leads to paranoia, so isn't worth it.

I continue to use Firefox as my main browser since it has certain key features that are important to me. Hence, I hope it doesn't fade into such irrelevance that sites stop rendering properly in it. I use other browsers, like Chrome, Brave etc as they're useful for testing and troubleshooting and it's important to have redundancy. Alas, it's no longer possible to use the decrepit IE to download other browsers, sigh. It was really great for that...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[aussiefooty]

It's all misinformation. They don't at all.

 

[Retro]

You're wrong there, both of them show evidence for their claims or I wouldn't have posted it.