On 29/09/2021 8:31 am, Petzl wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2021 08:20:27 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
> Kev) wrote:
>
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>>
>>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>>> back to Google.
>>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>>
>>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>>> the whole story but it's a start.
>>
>> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
>> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>>
>> What I do need is a way around their Captchas, because at that one
>> I'm stuck. The new one that pops up in PayPal's payment window is
>> hell to temporarily allow through NoScript as well, there's some
>> security feature in Firefox that prevents changing settings
>> applying to that window once it's open.
>>
> I've used Opera Browser for years, with "AdBlockPlus" (don't use Opera
> p0pup blocker) no youtube ads or pop-ups, with it
> Don't like captchas but put up with them
> "AdBlockPlus" if a "Element" shows you click the red stop icon on
> browser and select block element, go back to browser and then click
> element, gone forever
>

I tried Opera but too many sites didn't work or didn't work properly.
Firefox with a tracking and ad blockers works for most stuff.
Occasionally have to use Chrome for some sites but no biggy.

On 28/09/2021 2:35 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> News 2021 wrote
>>> Yosemite Sam wrote
>
>>>> been trying it out. seems to be better than the alternatives.
>
>>> What is the privacy and security like?
>
>> Anything that gets you out of Google and Apples clutches has to be good.
>
> That’s mindlessly silly with apple which doesn’t use any of your data at
> all.
>
> They cant even associate your movements using apple maps with you.

Yeah right. You really believe that do you?

On 29/09/2021 8:20 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>
>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>> back to Google.
>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>
>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>> the whole story but it's a start.
>
> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>
> What I do need is a way around their Captchas, because at that one
> I'm stuck. The new one that pops up in PayPal's payment window is
> hell to temporarily allow through NoScript as well, there's some
> security feature in Firefox that prevents changing settings
> applying to that window once it's open.
>
I'm not sure how the chromium rendering engine sends data back to
Google, looking at PiHole logs, I see no evidence of it. A lot of
Chromes shortcomings are outside of that, Brave show no indication of
trying to determine whether you are trying to enter a web address or a
search by throwing your incomplete entry at DNS servers character by
character for instance.

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>> Yosemite Sam wrote

>>>>> been trying it out. seems to be better than the alternatives.

>>>> What is the privacy and security like?

>>> Anything that gets you out of Google and Apples clutches has to be good.

>> That’s mindlessly silly with apple which doesn’t use any of your data at
>> all.

>> They cant even associate your movements using apple maps with you.

> Yeah right. You really believe that do you?

I know that is a fact because the ID is encrypted.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 8:20 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>>
>>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>>> back to Google.
>>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>>
>>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>>> the whole story but it's a start.
>>
>> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
>> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>>
> I'm not sure how the chromium rendering engine sends data back to
> Google, looking at PiHole logs, I see no evidence of it.

I simply wouldn't give them the opportunity, given that it runs all
the Javascript, there are obviously a huge variety of ways that
they _could_ sneek information out. Given the amount of code, I'm
not convinced that it would be easily detected by people outside of
Google looking through it. The PiHole only blocks what it knows
about.

Besides, people using Google's rendering engine gives Google more
control over the design of the web, as I mentioned earlier. That's
also enough reason for me to avoid it on principle.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 30/09/2021 10:49 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 8:20 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>>>> back to Google.
>>>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>>>
>>>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>>>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>>>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>>>> the whole story but it's a start.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
>>> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>>>
>> I'm not sure how the chromium rendering engine sends data back to
>> Google, looking at PiHole logs, I see no evidence of it.
>
> I simply wouldn't give them the opportunity, given that it runs all
> the Javascript, there are obviously a huge variety of ways that
> they _could_ sneek information out. Given the amount of code, I'm
> not convinced that it would be easily detected by people outside of
> Google looking through it. The PiHole only blocks what it knows
> about.

If you're that paranoid about it, just block JS and accept the
consequences. My feeling is that there is a far greater leakage on the
server side.

> Besides, people using Google's rendering engine gives Google more
> control over the design of the web, as I mentioned earlier. That's
> also enough reason for me to avoid it on principle.

Maybe your mileage varies, but I haven't found that sticking to
principles like that gets you far in the industry, you just use whatever
works best until something better comes along.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 10:49 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021 8:20 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>>>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>>>>> back to Google.
>>>>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>>>>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>>>>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>>>>> the whole story but it's a start.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
>>>> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the chromium rendering engine sends data back to
>>> Google, looking at PiHole logs, I see no evidence of it.
>>
>> I simply wouldn't give them the opportunity, given that it runs all
>> the Javascript, there are obviously a huge variety of ways that
>> they _could_ sneek information out. Given the amount of code, I'm
>> not convinced that it would be easily detected by people outside of
>> Google looking through it. The PiHole only blocks what it knows
>> about.
>
> If you're that paranoid about it, just block JS and accept the
> consequences.

No I use Firefox, which doesn't use Google's rendering engine. But
if I could get by without JS then I would, using much less bloated
browsers like Dillo, which I use as much as I can anyway.

> My feeling is that there is a far greater leakage on the
> server side.

But companies aren't collecting data across multiple sites from
their servers, they're targeting the clients. Mind you I can't
be sure of any servers I don't control myself, so at a certain
point of paranoia I guess you'd assume they were doing that too.
The rise of services like Cloudflare make it more of a risk as
well.

>> Besides, people using Google's rendering engine gives Google more
>> control over the design of the web, as I mentioned earlier. That's
>> also enough reason for me to avoid it on principle.
>
> Maybe your mileage varies, but I haven't found that sticking to
> principles like that gets you far in the industry, you just use whatever
> works best until something better comes along.

Well we all draw our own line in the sand at some point. I wouldn't
want to work in web development on principle in the first place
anyway.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 1/10/2021 9:12 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/09/2021 10:49 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2021 8:20 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/09/2021 5:48 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2021 8:46 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2021 3:11 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Err, except it is chrome based, which is google?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's based on chromium not chrome, there is a difference, chromium is an
>>>>>>>>>> open source engine, without the evil bits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Google develop it, so you're definately not out of their clutches.
>>>>>>>>> They determine what works and what doesn't, and what evil bits
>>>>>>>>> get removed and what stay. Of course in theory as it's open-source
>>>>>>>>> so anyone can modify it to make it their own, but in practice it's
>>>>>>>>> too complicated for others to do more than minor tinkering, and
>>>>>>>>> they mostly just do window dressing like this Brave browser.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure that various researchers are combing though it, like every
>>>>>>>> other piece of OS software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's mainly just looking for bugs, they don't get paid for
>>>>>>> finding intentional leaks of your personal browsing information
>>>>>>> back to Google.
>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/chrome-rewards/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of Googles data comes from the use of their search engine, the
>>>>>> first step is avoiding that. Secondly not using their DNS servers,
>>>>>> thirdly blacklisting Google Lead Services and Doubleclick. That's not
>>>>>> the whole story but it's a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, and after that avoiding browsers based on their rendering
>>>>> engine, and indeed all Google software, which is where I'm at.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how the chromium rendering engine sends data back to
>>>> Google, looking at PiHole logs, I see no evidence of it.
>>>
>>> I simply wouldn't give them the opportunity, given that it runs all
>>> the Javascript, there are obviously a huge variety of ways that
>>> they _could_ sneek information out. Given the amount of code, I'm
>>> not convinced that it would be easily detected by people outside of
>>> Google looking through it. The PiHole only blocks what it knows
>>> about.
>>
>> If you're that paranoid about it, just block JS and accept the
>> consequences.
>
> No I use Firefox, which doesn't use Google's rendering engine. But
> if I could get by without JS then I would, using much less bloated
> browsers like Dillo, which I use as much as I can anyway.
>
>> My feeling is that there is a far greater leakage on the
>> server side.
>
> But companies aren't collecting data across multiple sites from
> their servers, they're targeting the clients. Mind you I can't
> be sure of any servers I don't control myself, so at a certain
> point of paranoia I guess you'd assume they were doing that too.
> The rise of services like Cloudflare make it more of a risk as
> well.
>
>>> Besides, people using Google's rendering engine gives Google more
>>> control over the design of the web, as I mentioned earlier. That's
>>> also enough reason for me to avoid it on principle.
>>
>> Maybe your mileage varies, but I haven't found that sticking to
>> principles like that gets you far in the industry, you just use whatever
>> works best until something better comes along.
>
> Well we all draw our own line in the sand at some point. I wouldn't
> want to work in web development on principle in the first place
> anyway.
>
It's the pits, I've developed some internal company sites, more
information portals than web sites, but I didn't particularly enjoy it.