Hacker News Reader

Comment by damoncali | Hacker News Reader

Can you imagine the privacy issues of Facebook owning a browser? I'd be afraid to install the damn thing.

Edit: For those who point out Google, I would argue that Google has demonstrated only a desire to show me ads (which I actually like). Facebook has demonstrated a desire to show everyone everything.

View on HN

After all, none of the other data-hungry vendors address bars behave exactly like a keylogger (cough Chrome)

The omnibox gets autocomplete recommendations which is a very useful feature, how do you expect they could get autocomplete recommendations without sending the prefix to the server? You can also easily disable the feature in settings, it's even right on the front of settings not buried.

Edit: Also if you change your default search engine to Bing, then Chrome is behaving as a keylogger for Microsoft by your definition.

The feature as written indeed can't work without sending every keystroke. That doesn't mean it's any less intrusive. I'd even dare say it was probably not accidentally designed that way.

Still, it's a feature you can disable. I'd love to be able to disable everything the Like buttons of the world do to unsuspecting visitors, but how?

Ghostery.

Besides the fact that that feature is easily disabled (actually if you don't choose Google on first start, it's never enabled).

Chromium is open source, it doesn't include these pieces, yet you still get to benefit from all of WebKit's awesomeness and Google's contributions to it. Like a modern realtime communication platform, new APIs enabling adaptive streaming, WebGL, NaCl and more.

Also, how else would the recommendations work except as described?

Along with Instant, in an ideal world simply by not existing.

When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for, and furthermore the question I'm asking is the same question everybody else is asking.

In the case of both features I'm treated with a flury of distracting, schizophrenic flashes where previously the UI would behave patiently and consistently while I entered my query.

Instant, suggestions, Sets, and the site preview function are begging to be hidden behind a button where you explicitly tell the engine you're confused, and need help figuring out what the vague thing you have in mind really looks like (complete with revolutionary highly visual UI that doesn't resemble a regular search). At least for a user like me.

> When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for

If you find the Google experience "insulting," you are far too emotionally attached to how you interact with Google's services.

I wear a hat tin foil hat with a wide brim, so I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should take it personally (my parents will probably die never knowing what a browser is, and they simply need help). Just use Chromium with certain modifications to remove all ~tracking related functions, and then add 'noscript', 'ghostery', 'better privacy' and/or other extensions to remove the more intrusive parts of the web (it's the best we can do right now, and no one party is acting significantly more intrusive).

"When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for, and furthermore the question I'm asking is the same question everybody else is asking."

Often when I search, I have a keyword in mind, but not necessarily the wording. The autocomplete is great for helping me refine my query. I'm not really sure why Google suggesting common searches would be insulting?

Exactly. Just because forgotusername values clean non-suggestive UIs doesn't mean everyone else does. If Google is to cater to the majority of their clients which they should, based on just how my non-technical friends and family enjoy Google Instant and auto-completion I'd say they've successfully solved their users' problem.

Not to say all of them. I personally don't make use of either features whatever but at least I can disable both!

A browser is troubling but you can opt-out by using a competitor (I think that's a reason why Google still supports Firefox). It's when they start buying ISPs that you should treat it seriously because that's an attempt to control the platform from the street to the servers.

The main reason Google provides money to Mozilla is to buy billions of search queries from them via default placement in the search bar. That's it.

Google is replacing webkit on their Android software with their own Chrome mobile browser. It may already be done.

webkit is the rendering engine used by chrome (and safari and konqueror and probably others). In what way are they replacing it with chrome?

That is the terminology used here. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224057/Google_accele...

They're replacing the current android browser with one which is based on the (desktop) Chrome browser. It still uses webkit as the rendering engine though. It the everything-but-the-rendering-engine that they're changing.

I think the same of google and chrome, but I am almost the only one. So I think most people will not care.

Google has never tried to sell my data or show it to third-parties, though.

But you have no reason to believe they won't in the future. Honestly, thank goodness for Mozilla and I hope they can keep up with browsers for a long time because the web will be a horrible place without Firefox.

Why would Safari (which, although not perfect, is in fact available on Windows) + pure open source Chromium (Chrome without Google stuff) not be enough of an alternative?

> But you have no reason to believe they won't in the future.

This applies to everyone, including Mozilla.

Because it's easy to verify that that isn't the case. If you don't trust the Chrome binaries, feel free to use Chromium (which is of course completely open source). Further, I'm not sure what the actual implication is here (Google is reading your HTTP traffic?), but it would be easily (dis)proven with Wireshark and would be an enormous scandal.

No less than with Google owning Chrome, and people seem to be quite used to that.

Opera is one of those browsers that stores your cache on their servers to make your browsing quicker.Your browsing habits are already going through their servers.Now add Facebook to the mix.What do you have? The mother of all profiling softwares.☼

Only if you enable Opera Turbo (http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/), which came disabled by default on my installation.

Or on Opera Mini, but that’s a very specialized browser, like Amazon Silk. Also worth mentioning is that even if Turbo is explicitly enabled, it doesn’t ever activate for secure connections.

At least with Chrome you can just use Chromium. It would be interesting to see if FB open sourced Opera.

You're fear mongering. Facebook has certainly had its issues in the past but recently they've been very transparent about what they are doing with your personal data. To the point where the CPO has been doing a road show taking questions and asking for feedback[1]. You might not like what they do but there are no secrets.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/facebook-privacy-policy-cha...

I disagree. It is still very, very easy to accidentally share something you don't want to be shared on Facebook. That is intentional.

Why would that be intentional? What possible motivation does Facebook have for wanting you to accidentally reshare something?

Further, I don't even understand the accusation. You have to click "Share" on a post to share it, and even then, there's an additional, quite explicit confirmation required.

It would be intentional because more shares = more traffic = more money for Facebook. Longer term, it means less expectation of privacy and even more opportunities to publish even more stuff to more people. Zuckerberg has pretty much explicitly stated that this is the goal.

And those explicit confirmations contain so much noise that it's often quite difficult to tell what you're confirming.

Because each additional story shared add contents to your friends feed ? And some things you don't want to share are the one that would interest your friends the most.

("friends" in the Facebook sense, of course).

And you don't have to click to share. You just have to do something in one apps linked somehow to your facebook account. Or leave a comment on a third party site. Or..

Yes, you can be attentive to all these, but that's not what I would call easy for everyone.

I was just about to move my email hosting to fastmail, so this will be a significant issue for me. I hope it is confirmed or denied quickly. Any suggestions if this turns out to be true?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com