Hacker News Reader

Comment by furyg3 | Hacker News Reader

Yet another plugin to add to my privacy arsenal (opt-outs from Google, AdBlock, Ghostery, Disconnect, and now Badger).

This really reminds me of the early years of antivirus on Windows, when you needed at least two antivirus suites to catch everything. Just as vendors eventually acknowledged (mostly) their responsibility for security on their OSes, browsers need to step up and start implementing these features by default, and innovating. It's crazy that, at the moment, I have to grant a third party total and unlimited access to my browser and history in order to protect my own privacy.

This should be on, by default, since most people are generally either adamantly against being tracked or ignorant of it and their options.

The handful of people that have a hard-on for targeted marketing should be ticking checkboxes in preference panels and installing plugins, not people who would rather Neilson not know everything about them...

View on HN

Privacy is not a goal of Google chrome.

How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?

You mean Firefox?

Firefox is technically/indirectly ad-supported. I don't think it's much of a problem - which is why I use it - but it is an incentive to not piss of Google too much, which can conflict with its mission.

Off the cuff? $40.

Of course my willingness would vary depending on the project, community, features, stability, etc... but there's precedent. I've had no problem donating similar amounts to browser projects in the past, or smaller amounts (+/- $10) to privacy plugins (Adblock, Disconnect).

As a mac user, it's Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. All three are to varying degrees beholden to advertising powers who want my data, and aren't going to challenge the status quo in a major way. That needs to change, and I'd be willing to support that.

Let's say $40 per annum, i.e. $3.33/month, to pay for a browser like we do for an OS. I'd be willing to pay for an essential piece of software that needs to be independent and look after me and my data.

Simplifying, 39% of the world's 7.1bn population is using the internet [1]. That's 2.8bn people. Opera, the least popular major browser, has a 1.8% market share [2].

If the $40 browser could match that share, it'd be a $2bn p.a. business.

Why hasn't it happened already? Are we so enamoured with "free" software that this couldn't get off the ground?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Probably because you are thinking of yourself and as a representative sample of the population that is interested in privacy. Hate to break it to you, but if you understand how you are tracked ata all, you are in the minority. HN is quite possible the least representative population of the global internet user population in terms of both amount of money that you have (and hence amount you'd be willing to spend) and most people on HN have a pretty good idea of what is being tracked whereas a member of the general population would not.

Personally, I think there could be sufficient demand especially if you consider this:

Microsoft has traditionally been in the business of developing and selling user-centric (as opposed to advertiser-centric) software. Why wouldn't they develop a user-centric browser and sell it like they do the Office products? I'm genuinely wondering. Would it be hated by developers as it'd limit their earning opportunities?

I think that we are at the point in the game that people don't want to pay for a browser unless they can get something significantly better than what they get from a free browser. Keep in mind that in breaking into the market, you have to overtake the competitors with features that aren't available. This would likely be possible in the mobile market, but not the desktop market.

Opera's market share has been both increasing and decreasing over the last few years[1] but it looks like it is taking market share from IE users and more people are switching to chrome. So I would predict Opera's share would go down in the future.

The big questions for me, would then be: What am I getting from a browser that I pay for over a free one? Can I get the same features out of plugins for a more widely adopted (and hence better supported or developed for) browser?

Microsoft is really business and student oriented with the majority of their products. A browser only matches part of their design goals. They want people to keep paying for their OS and don't want products to migrate to the web where they have to compete with Google (Though they already have to do this to some extent).

Don't get me wrong, I would be personally interested in something like this but don't believe that many people outside of developers (and people doing criminal things whether moral or not) would be.

Not sure what you mean with the last point/question. The market share would be decidedly small, it likely wouldn't be developed for (unless it used a major library like webkit) and most business people wouldn't notice much difference in their ad-based revenue from such a small market share.

[1] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Ahead of time, or after it is available?

How much private information is someone willing to provide (knowingly) for an ad supported browser?

Sexual orientation? Medical records? 24/7 location tracker? Banking status? Purchase records? All private correspondence? Check all, and you get a nice fast browser in the phone with integrated e-wallet, e-medical, e-dating, and email.

When you ask how much someone is willing to pay for their privacy, we are comparing a product with uncertain hidden cost vs informed priced products. The result will always end up the same: you get lemons until the information asymmetry is solved.

Because of the good plugins that are becoming more available, probably just €10. And it would have to be open source (but not necessarily free, as in beer) otherwise it is bs.

I'd pay anywhere from $25-$60, depending on functionality.

Any promises of privacy or security are worthless unless it's on an open licence (GPL equivalent) - and in that case how would payment be enforced? Apparently you are asking a "trick question".

This seems like it would completely replace Disconnect/Ghostery. Am I correct?

I think he is aiming for redundancy. I.E., what happens if Ghostery starts letting companies pay to be 'let through'? The GP might know about it, since I'm sure that kind of story would find it's way to HN, but it's nice to have some redundancy when it comes to protecting ones privacy.

Which is why it's awesome the EFF is doing this one. They can be trusted.

You could just use Epic instead, which would be like using Linux or Mac without an antivirus:

https://www.epicbrowser.com/

It's not even open source yet, why exactly would one trust it?

From their website's faq[1]:

> Is Epic Open Source?

> Yes! Epic is open source software. Chromium which Epic is built on is also open source software. We haven't had a chance to formally release Epic's source code because we've been giving 200% to get the product ready, and Chromium is a HUGE code base so to release it in an organized way will take a bit of effort. That being said, if you want to know anything about Epic's changes to the core Chromium, if you want any files, any code, anything at all, just write us and we're happy to get it to you. We will be releasing all the code in organized git repository soon as well -- sorry for the delay.

However, please note that Epic uses a builtin proxy. Also from the faq:

> Who powers Epic’s proxy service?

> Spotflux at present powers Epic’s proxy.

[1]: https://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html

If it doesn't have the source available along with the binaries, it's not open source, regardless of their good intentions.

Afaict that's not technically correct. For example the GPL doesn't require that you provide the source code up-front, it's enough if you provide it when asked for. Which seems to be what the epic folks do.

From the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/osd)

    2. Source Code
    The program must include source code, and must allow 
    distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 
    Where some form of a product is not distributed with 
    source code, there must be a well-publicized means of
    obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable 
    reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the 
    Internet without charge. The source code must be the 
    preferred form in which a programmer would modify the 
    program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not 
    allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a 
    preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

So it really depends on your interpretation of "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code". I don't think I would label a "send us an email and (maybe) we'll give you the source or the patches) as Open Source, mostly because if a company doesn't already have their source in the open, they don't want it in the open, doesn't matter what they write on their site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com