Yeah, currently scheduled for Firefox 120.

Yeah, so if it’s truly the download or install size you care about, then Via is a good choice in that regard (I know nothing else about it).

But in terms of program complexity and runtime resource usage, it is basically Google Chrome with a different UI.

I mean, I certainly don’t want to argue against 2FA, but some accounts are just …disposable, you know?

Like, if someone hacks into this account, obviously not great, but I’ll talk to the admins to get it suspended/deleted and then I’ll make a new one. It’s mostly just a minor inconvenience…

I agree that lots of software calls itself e2ee, despite the ends being untrustworthy and one can definitely argue that therefore the word itself should not imply trustworthy.

But well, in this particular context, folks were using the ‘trustworthy’ definition…

It kind of depends on your definition of “end-to-end”. Normally, what people mean is from one communication partner (i.e. human) to the other. If you use a software to do the encrypting and decrypting, it should be open-source and verifiable. The WhatsApp client is not that. It is an attack vector and it takes in your message in unencrypted form.

In my experience, it can be difficult to grasp for privileged folks, who do kind of have not that much to fear, if they don’t hide their identity. But for minority groups and well, women, it comes a lot more naturally.

Problem is that they can still compromise it. Simplest method would be to just take what you’ve typed into the UI and send it two times. One time to your communication partners and one time unencrypted / decryptable for themselves.

But even if they’re exclusively sending via Signal’s library and not tampering with it or anything, they can still instruct Signal’s library to add another member to a group chat. And that ‘member’ can be their server. It will be sent, fully end-to-end-encrypted, but to an end you don’t know about.

Are you talking about userContent.css? For that, it makes sense to me that it would be visible to webpages, since it applies styles to webpages.

But OP is talking about userChrome.css, which styles the Firefox UI. I would be very surprised, if that’s not isolated from webpages.

The German government has an ongoing investigation into achieving this: https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Service-Navi/Publikationen/Studien/SiSyPHuS_Win10/SiSyPHuS.html

I’m mostly posting this to say that it’s a lot of work. They dubbed it “SiSyPHuS”, not because that acronym just came naturally from the study’s title…

Android has built-in support for a so-called “work profile”, so folks can use their personally owned smartphone for work tasks with reasonable isolation. It has a separate file system, separate apps list, separate contacts etc…

Normally, this work profile will be activated and managed by your employer. Shelter (and similar apps, e.g. Insular) allows you to activate the work profile yourself and do basic management, like copying apps and files into there.

From a privacy viewpoint, it’s great, if you’re e.g. forced to use WhatsApp, but don’t want it scraping your contacts.

Id Tech 3 is GPLv2, so for that one, yes. I’m not aware of similar being true for Unreal Engine 2, so I’d assume, no.

But if you’re just generally looking for an engine that won’t bite you, Godot is a better choice.

What hasn’t been said as explicitly yet: It being Chromium-based means there’s tons of implementation details that are bad, which will not be listed in any such comparison table.

For example, the Battery Status web standard was being abused, so Mozilla removed their implementation: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/battery-status-api-being-removed-from-firefox-due-to-privacy-concerns/
Chromium-based browsers continue to be standards-compliant in this regard.

And this is still quite a high-level decision. As a software engineer, I can attest that we make tiny design decisions every single day. I’d much rather have those design decisions made under the helm of a non-profit, with privacy as one of their explicit goals, than under an ad corporation.

And Brave shipping that ad corp implementation with just a few superficial patches + privacy-extensions is what us experts call: Lipstick on a pig.

“Omnibar” is Chrome’s naming, though. Firefox’s component is technically called “Awesomebar”, although most folks do just call it “address bar”, “URL bar”, “nav bar” etc…

Other browsers have been blocking third-party cookies for quite a while, so I cannot imagine any ad network which doesn’t already have alternative solutions in place and is therefore simply given more identifying data by this system. If Google genuinely wanted to change the ad model, they’d block tracking scripts by default.

Title says “enhanced privacy” and text says they’re handing out more data to websites…

Legal cookie banners need to make consent as easy as nonconsent.

So, if “Accept All” is a button, “Deny All” also needs to be a button.
Also, you cannot refuse service to someone who refuses Cookies, unless they’re necessary to the functioning of the service.

Without these principles, it wouldn’t be consent. You can’t force someone to give consent.

You also do not need a Cookie banner, if:

• you don’t track personal data. (GDPR literally does not apply.)
• you only track personal data obviously required for the provided service, like a login cookie or a shopping cart cookie. (Implied Consent)

So, why do you care?

There’s tons of women, who need to protect their privacy in online dating, to avoid stalkers and worse. And that’s specifically because many people want to get laid with them.

Yeah, people who think they have nothing to hide enjoy maximum privilege: No one ever wanted to use knowledge about them against them. At least not for long enough that they realized telling everybody everything isn’t smart.

That won’t exist for long anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/16/lbry-closes-odysee-cryptocurrency-tech-sec-fraud-extremist

For a normal company, that is a perfectly reasonable policy. What’s really the outraging part here, is that YouTube holds a monopoly on tons of content.

People feel forced to access YouTube to live their lives, whether that’s just to watch entertainment they’ve followed for a while, or because a colleague sends a link to a YouTube video, or because when looking up stuff, the only explanation seems to be in a YouTube video.

If they could simply go to a competitor with a less shitty app, less awful privacy practices or a more open ecosystem, they wouldn’t need to complain about YouTube to begin with.

I enjoy how the list starts with innocous stuff and when it starts to become too long for most users to read, it requests access to all the rest, too…

They haven’t announced it yet on their webpage. With previous releases, they included the release announcement video in that, so maybe it isn’t ready yet.

But, who knows. It’s just as well possible that no one from the team has the time/motivation to record a video this time around…