Everything about privacy (the confidentiality pillar of security) -- but not restricted to infosec. Offline privacy is also relevant here.
Ladies and gentlemen! It's true. Mozilla has finally done it.
Fortunately I have been dailying @zen_browser for the past 2 months and I recommend you do the same if you don't want to migrate to ChromeTech. Otherwise use @[email protected].
The fox is dead. Long live the fox.
#mozilla #browser #privacy #technology
Has Brave stopped being homophobic and injecting crypto schemes into links?
@[email protected] No idea. I don't use Brave. I used to use it before moving to Firefox and then to Zen. It was okay. The crypto crap didn't bother me that much as it was easy to turn off and ignore.
Their privacy policy is really good. Much better than Firefox's: https://brave.com/privacy/browser/
The reason why I still use Vanilla Firefox is due to security concerns. Yes, Zen is cool but new features are bound to introduce their own issues and as a relatively new project, it's yet to stand the test of time. Also, being listed in PrivacyGuides is one of my requirements.
With that waffle out of the way, I'm willing to give it a spin again as funnily enough, before moving to Firefox, I was a very happy Vivaldi user for years but switched due to MV3.
@[email protected] @[email protected] Simple solution: don't input or upload data to Firefox. If you need to sync bookmarks, use Floccus or Syncthing.
Disable search suggestions, AI, translation, etc. It's quite easy to avoid giving them data if you're willing to dive into the settings.
For the record, Brave takes even more work to disable that crap. I'm nearly certain Brave already has clauses like this. There's simply no way they could provide AI tools without them.
Fret not, @[email protected] is alive and well.
It's better to use a different browser (at least for a few months), so it shows a little fall in their statistics.
@[email protected] @[email protected] I haven't been able to find anything that bad in their TOS or Privacy Policy: https://brave.com/privacy/browser/
In fact, Brave's privacy policy is miles better than Firefox's, and I don't even like Brave that much.
Your suggestion to turn all that crap off is pointless. Of course you might be able to switch some toggles but the company's policy matters just like you wouldn't trust Google even though they provide even better toggles for "privacy control".
TLDR: no tracking by default
@[email protected] @[email protected] I'll have to do more digging on the legal docs.
My point isn't necessarily to disable everything. You need to understand which toggles actually have an effect. This info is widely known for Firefox (hence projects like arkenfox and Betterfox).
It is troubling to see this sort of wording in a Mozilla policy.
Nothing against Brave, btw. If you insist on sticking to Chromium, it's not a bad option. I'd just hate to see Firefox lose more users, as it's the only alt to Chromium.
@notesnook Not sure if you're aware, but there's been a clarification added.
https://www.ghacks.net/2025/02/27/mozillas-new-terms-of-use-causes-confusion-among-firefox-users/
Again, I agree the wording is troubling. We'll have to see how this plays out. I feel like very little has changed, they've just updated their legal terms.
I, for one, won't be dropping @firefox. I already use Brave (and LibreFox and Cromite) as well for uncooperative websites and specific use cases.
If you're truly worried about this, I'd urge you to look into LibreFox or another fork.
@[email protected] that makes sense, actually. They should have been more clear about this. Thanks for the link!
And I use Zen, a Firefox/Gecko derivative. I don't particularly like any of the Chromium forks out there including Brave but yeah.
@[email protected] Heard really good things about Zen. Might have to give it a spin.
Love the work you're doing on Notesnook! Keep it up the great work! 🫶
We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example.
This is from an article posted in this thread, where Mozilla clarifies the terms.
And I have to admit to being confused, what basic functionallity would break if they don't get my data?
It's the difference between an explicit permission and an implicit permission. Let's put that into the real world for a second. If you want someone to do work in your home to get something done on your behalf you need to tell that person what you want and where you want it. You also need to allow them to come into your home otherwise they can't do their job. All of that happens implicitly in the real world but in the digital world it needs to be written out like that.
In yet other words: it's not about Mozilla wanting your data it's about their service needing it to work at all. You not giving Firefox permission to use your data is akin to asking an electrician if he can do some work but refusing to give any information on what needs doing, or where.
That still doesn't explain why they need access to it.
To work with your analogy, I would be happy granting a specific worker access, but I would not grant the company access.
Meaning, I am fine with the local instance of Firefox access, but why does Mozilla the company need access?
The thing is, the worker is part of the company. If you say that no one from that company is allowed to get into your home that worker can't do it's job either. Mozilla doesn't need access but the worker from them needs it if they are supposed to do their jobs. It's why legally speaking companies can be handles as if they were persons.
all sorts of suggestions