Any other of your questions was already answered in the first comment at 11:33 am. Remember: these contributions are optional – browsing the web with Brave is free. Brave is rapidly growing: > but such obviously rigged “studies” are pretty desperate too. You only get a certain share of the BAT for viewing ads, the rest goes to content creators (which you can tip as well), the company behind Brave (which has partnerships with the companies behind the ads). Edge also sends the hardware UUID of the device to Microsoft and Yandex similarly transmits a hashed hardware identifier to back end servers. I also don’t understand the FF and others autocomplete claim, as anyone in his right mind would only have that read from local data and always turn off search engine suggestions. them. Anyway, it takes few clicks to change that. Something like a dozen connection attempts for each page loaded. Which means we won’t ever sell your data to third parties. Until then alternatives like Firefox are still objectively worse, because their betrayal as a consequence of being in business with the ad industry has already been visible for years, and all Waterfox does compared to Firefox is undoing bad Mozilla choices. @estrella, I suggest to take a look into privacy tools which has really geat recomendations and guides. It would be interesting to see how much each browser can be shut down with just browser tweaks. Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our, Mozilla rolls out DNS over HTTPS for users in the US: on by default, https://www.privacytools.io/browsers/#about_config, https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/14/waterfox-web-browser-sold-to-system1/, https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/467#issuecomment-581944600, https://candid.technology/google-personalises-search-results-in-incognito-mode/, https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterprise-manifest-v3/, https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/publications.php, https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/f96421/what_do_people_think_of_this_new_browser_privacy/, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19129309, https://twitter.com/flamsmark/status/1088170219695071232?s=09, https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/brave-overtakes-firefox-in-spain-201910250545, https://www.ghacks.net/2019/01/22/chrome-extension-manifest-v3-could-end-ublock-origin-for-chrome/, https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers-hosts.txt, https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy, https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1432, https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_palemoon_is_going_to_die_most_likely/, https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004, https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20200314, Time to remove Nano Adblocker and Defender from your browsers (except Firefox), How to deal with Google's and YouTube's aggressive popups (before you continue, sign in), Here is what is new and changed in Firefox 81.0, Firefox may soon display Sponsored Top Sites on the New Tab Page, Mozilla Add-ons developers may soon pay Mozilla for reviews and promoted listings, Microsoft begins Manifest v3 tests in Edge that impacts extensions like content blockers, Mozilla: there is a high probability that your browsing history can be used to identify you, Firefox 80.0.1 will be released today. This is private, IMHO. > in FF config you can disable xpinstall.signatures.required. @Anonymous: who says Yandex and friends don’t spy? > Oops, I forgot that I use and install on other PC’s FF 68.4.1ESR with GPO’s. ;)”. Waterfox was recently acquired by an ad company so I’d skip it on principle alone. Free software is useless if we are scared away from using forks that are designed to remove some of the malicious behavior. They will dismiss it because: TeLemETRy goOD nOw! We’re not in the personal data business. It is, together with Opera, the greatest spyware on the browser market. Seriously, Firefox phones home a whole lot more than several Chromium-based browsers. The privacy problem is not just our private data being sent: it is our private data being *used* against us, locally or not. If you don’t want to use a Chromium-based browser because it might have implications for the health of the web, then I do not think this is valid either. Of course. >Fast enough for what? > Waterfox was recently acquired by an ad company so I’d skip it on principle alone. So provided you did opt into Brave ads in the first place, what will happen is this: Your data will be examined locally, and ads will be served to you locally. >their employees chant that on f/firefox, and in other subs when they crawl out to send reports ikr, they even go outside of that shithole, sometimes on gHacks comments section with their pitchforks all risen up. And it isn’t 2nd it’s joint second. I know that you are a Mozilla fanboy, so I question why I am even writing this, but: Please explain how being served ads locally is worse than your data being processed on some server which you do not control? 2) The privacy aspect is the most important part of Brave ads, that’s why even the processing happens locally. in nuce: Brave is just a tool/experiment to circumvent the impact of ad blockers on the global advertising market and explore the integration of cryptocurrency in browsers at the same time. But they won’t, for known reasons. The study seems highly questionable. Toggle settings! Even Internet Explorer is doing better, which is telling. We must resist the infiltration of the ad business in every aspect of our lives because once they’re installed somewhere they become the norm and it becomes much more difficult to evict them. All Firefox users which blame Brave are huge hypocrites. Edge w/ MS account, Chrome w/ Google account), (c) change privacy-relevant settings to optimise the browser behaviour. From a privacy perspective Microsoft Edge and Yandex are qualitatively different from the other browsers studied. Both claim that we should accept “nice ads” instead of blocking them all because at the end it will make “not-nice ads” nicer. I don’t think the study was bought, btw. If you are willing to invest the time and nerves, Ungoogled Chromium wins, if not, Brave is almost as good after flipping a two prefs in the settings. > The studio probably didn’t take into account issues like this: The second one seems more about the Google Search site allegedly using IP address and fingerprinting to track users than about Chrome, except maybe if you’re implying that Chrome should include a fingerprinter blocker feature like Firefox. Firefox also maintains an open websocket for push notifications that is linked to a unique identifier and so potentially can also be used for tracking and which cannot be easily disabled. By putting an extension on the blocklist for whatever reason, they can remove it from your Firefox installation easily, too. @Anonymous: I don’t know if your comment is meant to be a reply to me since it does not make sense, but if it is meant to be, then please show me where I mention that Yandex or Bing are more private. they arent easy to implement though, the whole thing is a mess. My other Brave settings (preferences panel): Crypto Wallets –> Off Hangouts –> Off Media Router –> Off (should be set to On in case you own Chromecast-supporting hardware). Even Internet Explorer is doing better, which is telling. There is no reason why an integrated adblocker can’t be as powerful as uBlock Origin. We use optional third-party analytics cookies to understand how you use GitHub.com so we can build better products. Paste a URL into the address bar, press Enter, and record the user activity. For one, it has been around since the 1990s, while Brave has been around since 2016. Overall Ungoogled Chromium > Brave, though IMHO contacting an update server for necessary browser updates is not a problem, so for me it’s Brave > Ungoogled Chromium. As for the updates of UC, it keeps pace with Chromium’s updates pretty well. Or MS Bing browser? @Swat Valley: that’s nonsense. The ads being served locally is the only way to make them privacy-respecting in the first place. It’s much better to use the ublock, and on top of that, to be able to use ublock or any other. Come out and say what you mean in particular, otherwise this is also just BS. Probably I will reccommend it to spyChrome users that hate what FF has become, but I still prefer the about:config and userChrome.ccs power (until it lasts). Brave rightfully wins out of the box, since it blocks ads + trackers, and 3rd party tracking cookies. I gave you the reasons why this local processing is privacy hostile in this discussion, first here, https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/25/study-finds-brave-to-be-the-most-private-browser/#comment-4454725, https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/25/study-finds-brave-to-be-the-most-private-browser/#comment-4454770. To inspect encrypted data, mitmdump was used and since leftovers can be an issue, extra care was used to delete all traces of previous installations from the systems. It is not blackmailing, like in case of AdBlock Plus. Most of the time on gHacks I just defend it against malicious lies spread about it, like in the comments of @99 and @notanon, for example. The range of connections Firefox establishes by default is also very high. Brave doesn’t block 1st party cookies, ads and trackers, only 3rd party ones. That makes it the same type of blackmail of advertisers as in Adblock Plus. After all that, settings get hidden, changed, removed, added from 1 version to the next. If you just want the result, the study found that used out of the box, Brave "is by far the most private of the browsers studied" followed by Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Chrome is sneaking data via a non standard protocol which had to be blocked for its test to work. *Features marked with an asterisk are pending on one or more platforms. As examples of problems not considered in the study, Firefox leaking all DNS queries to Cloudflare by default in USA, and as far as I know they are the only one doing that, not even Chrome does. What this means is that the 99% that trust the defaults will be screwed. I wonder if this sort of tracking header is what the future Chrome “privacy sandbox” will look like as an alternative to tracking cookies. Widevine –> Off. disabling autocomplete functionality. There’s something wrong with your policies. Correct, it does not update itself automatically. And? If you decide to opt into Brave ads, up to five ads per hour (depending on the frequency you set) will be shown to you via a native notification of your OS. They don’t have to “share details to backend servers” …, “The ability to privately monitor user intent at the browser level allows for the development of rich metrics for user attention. Work fast with our official CLI. If you use Chrome, Google knows that you have Chrome anyway. I forgot that you are a Brave fanboy as well ! > It would be interesting to see how much each browser can be shut down with just browser tweaks. Ungoogled Chromium is extremely nice out of the box already (probably the best, literally zero unsolicited requests). All major browsers are privacy disasters and Brave is no exception no matter how many false claims its developers will make: Facebook, Twitter Trackers Whitelisted by Brave Browser https://archive.is/X98Xz https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19129309. Would you not mind as anti-privacy your private discussions in the room, or the contents of your computer, being locally spied on to target ads ?

Camp Is An Example Of Neuromodulator, Interactive Bible Map, Wd Red 2tb, Qnap Models Explained, Australian Grand Prix 2020 Schedule, Mongolia Gdp, How To Manifest A Thunderstorm, Bugzilla Tutorial, Arizona Arnold Palmer Lite Nutrition Facts, Adidas Gazelle Wide, The Great Blizzard Of 1888 Temperature,