# Firefox convenience



## ronaldlees (Oct 27, 2017)

Just when I thought they couldn't think up any more features for us ...



> "When you take a shot, Firefox posts your screenshot to your online Screenshots library and copies the link to your clipboard.  The screenshot is kept for two weeks"



   - From: the Firefox people at: screenshots.firefox.com

I think you need a Firefox account for this to happen, but am not sure. And - it's doing its own screenshot (and not activating your scrot) But, am I the only one who sees some possible downsides to this?  Exploits?  Your cellphone puts all your pics up on their servers (or can) - but those shots usually don't have passwords included in them.  I imagine I could think of some other unpleasant possibilities for this sort of thing.  

Note: _Firefox is a trademark of the Mozilla Foundation_


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Oct 27, 2017)

I opened the Customize window and dragged the little screenshot icon off my toolbar at the top.

If I want a screenshot I don't need my browser to take it either.

Now Privacy Badger, a www/firefox privacy extension, wants to update and is asking for new permission to store unlimited amounts of clinent-side data as a contingency.


----------



## ronaldlees (Oct 27, 2017)

I'm not familiar with Privacy Badger.  What kind of data would they be storing?  Cache?  Very interesting.

As far as the screenshots "feature" goes - I decided to get rid of the icon by using the configuration:


```
extensions.screenshots.disabled = true
```

Seems to work.  A little miffed it's an opt-out.  Haven't tried to tick it programmatically tho ...


----------



## getopt (Oct 27, 2017)

ronaldlees said:


> they don't want your p0rN.


It's all about data collection, metadata, user behavior.

For more of this "dys-feature" see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-screenshots

I'm [not ]wondering why they do not use their programming power to make Firefox a more secure browser. Instead they grow their code base for so called new features adding new attack surface. Everybody knows that screenshots are one of the power-features for surveillance- attacks. Looks like Mozilla offers "convenience" to attackers, as they might  get screenshots more conveniently.

Maybe we should care about from where Mozilla gets it's financial support and if it is bound to deliver certain "base capabilities". As it is still an Open Source project, such "features" cannot be added hidden. It has to be added in a way users are cheering a new feature. There are enough useful idiots around who welcome this and they take effect to "silence" critical users just by outnumbering them.

Has Mozilla-Firefox ever been forked for a more secure product?

Edit: And there is still the full supported www/firefox-esr which has version 52.4.1 and offers at least some protecting delay for new annoyances.

Also see: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/62878/ on Torbrowser and FreeBSD.


----------



## tobik@ (Oct 27, 2017)

getopt said:


> Has Mozilla-Firefox ever been forked for a more secure product?


https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html
https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/


----------



## ekingston (Oct 27, 2017)

getopt said:


> ...
> 
> Has Mozilla-Firefox ever been forked for a more secure product?



Not that I know of but I'm starting to think about improving my ability to read code enough to make a "WarmFox" fork that takes the Firefox code-base and strips out the "sends data to Mozilla or other 3rd party" parts (1st party is you, 2nd party is the website you are browsing). I will probably never do this but I sometimes dream.

The other thing I want to do is base all cookies (and other stored data) based on the url displayed on the address bar. Mean if you go to one website which grabs ads from Google (which sets cookies) and then you go to another website which also grabs ads from Google, the 2nd call to Google will not send back the cookies it got from the first call. I have no clue how to actually do this, but I think it would go a long way to making by browsing experience more like I expect it to be.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Oct 27, 2017)

ronaldlees said:


> I'm not familiar with Privacy Badger.  What kind of data would they be storing?  Cache?  Very interesting.



Privacy Badger is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the same people who make the HTTPS Everywhere extension.


----------



## ronaldlees (Oct 27, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> Privacy Badger is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the same people who make the HTTPS Everywhere extension.



Organizations like that have an ostensibly good purpose, but no organization in the world has 100 percent of their people on-board with their mission. I hasten to add that I don't know of any problem with any of their projects.

I still think they should have created a better name than _panopticlick_ for their fingerprint checker.  I get the _panopticon_ reference OK (if intended), and it's creative alright - but white hats shouldn't wear gray just to sound cute.  Probably, they should just call it _fingerprint checker_.  They obviously could (if they *really* wanted to) - become a repository of browser fingerprints.  But, I've trusted them not to do that.  Any other big web presence could collect fingerprints, and panopticlick's volume doesn't seem to be that high anyway.

I'm sure it's all good.


----------



## ronaldlees (Oct 27, 2017)

getopt said:


> Has Mozilla-Firefox ever been forked for a more secure product?



I remember when I looked at the first snapshot of Mozilla's Servo browser.  IIRC, it's now touted as having some "more secure" browser component technology.  Debug Servo could pour out an extremely detailed audit debug stream of every little thing the browser was doing as it ran.  It was fantastic - as I'd never seen such a good/rich (std) debug output in a browser.  But, it was eye opening too.

Going to a site like this one, I could observe expected stuff.  But going to a busier site, one that suggested probably a lot of advertising involvement, really gave me an indication of how much of a browser's time/resources can be spent with ads, when that browser is accessing an ad-friendly site. This is not a Servo thing really, it's an ad-site javascript thing.  Anyway, it literally seemed like the ad processing was all the browser was doing. The ad-related debug stream seemed so huge as to blot out the kind of stuff I was expecting to see (like the downloading of some JPEG image) - with a veritable deluge related to opening this advertising slot or that one, and processing it, and other ad-related things.  On really ad-friendly sites, it was tough to differentiate any of the "regular stuff".

Because I'm not a regular ad/commerce site developer, I had an image in my head of the browser-website interaction that (in general) was false.  I had envisioned that the "regular stuff" was the main ingredient, with a sprinkling of ad processing.  Based on my (limited) time with the debug output of Servo, it's sorta the other way around, esp on ad-heavy sites.  _Note that Servo is not the fault here_ - it was just processing the javascript from the site, which was advertising heavy because it was an ad-heavy site.

Browser makers (including Mozilla) don't themselves add a lot of functionality to promote ads.  But, that's where the money is, so they probably find themselves "leaning the ad way" with new "features" because the end users don't give them a dime, directly.  But - they don't fight ads either, as it's the hand that feeds.  So, this new browser you're talking about would have defensive features that deflect ads and the associated processing overhead.  With all the billionaires in the world, it seems like one could kick-start such a thing.  Or ... maybe it could be a kick-starter style of project.  It could be forked, so wouldn't need to be started "from scratch"

_Servo is a product and/or trademark of the Mozilla Foundation_


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Oct 27, 2017)

ronaldlees said:


> This is not a Servo thing really, it's an ad-site javascript thing.



That's where the NoScript and uBlock Origin extensions come into play when I use www/firefox.


----------



## ronaldlees (Oct 27, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> That's where the NoScript and uBlock Origin extensions come into play when I use www/firefox.



So, a forked browser could have that built in.  Here's another idea: built in unbound functionality.  Why not?  As well as  built-in ad white/black listing, etc.  But, alas - it's not cheap to do a browser, or even a fork.

I should mention that the first post doesn't mean to imply that I know whether or not a screenshot can be triggered by other than the user.  It seems like an exploit target tho ...


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Oct 27, 2017)

ronaldlees said:


> I should mention that the first post doesn't mean to imply that I know whether or not a screenshot can be triggered by other than the user.  It seems like an exploit target tho ...



I'd say it's a lot less likely to happen with JavaScript disabled.  

I am a firm believer in not surfing with JavaScript enabled globally and never install Flash or Java on my machines.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 13, 2017)

What exactly do you want to protect?

Are you such an asshole that some people would want to give themselves the trouble to steal your firefox screenshots?

Do you really have nothing better to do than pretend to have such an interesting life, or be such an interesting or important person that your online privacy concerns you?

Get real, man... nobody cares.  Not even you.

Would you like directions to the nearest bridge ?


----------



## Phishfry (Nov 13, 2017)

What an odd response. All users here care about our privacy. That is why we use evasive browser maneuvers.

The last thing we want is this bubblegum bullshit baked into a browser.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 13, 2017)

I find it funny that so-called, and self-styled "gurus" would complain about the addition of a social media feature to an XML renderer and HTTP1.1 handler that's now 200+ MB in source alone, and hogs about 200 MB of RAM per open tab...

I think you have more important things to deal with in regards to Firefox than the screenshot feature, if you want to deal with it alone.

Whatever happened to "If you don't like it, take it out of the source code." mentality, or spirit?

Where is it written that you could benefit from a browser for free?  How do you think these free software things make money?  By selling your data in big...

I just think it's ludicrous that someone would complain about a 1. free, and 2. open source software, that, even though it's the most convenient thing around, is 3. already so bloated that the addition of 4. animated GIFs templates in an integrated e-mail client wouldn't even change its absolutely ridiculous footprint!


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 14, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> What exactly do you want to protect?





poorandunlucky said:


> How do you think these free software things make money?  By selling your data in big...



As much of my data from being hoovered up as possible.


----------



## sidetone (Nov 14, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> As much of my data from being hoovered up as possible.


It is unethical. Not now, but in the future it will be a threat to democracy. Companies will use such data to manipulate masses in a more efficient way. Facebook does it. Russia's government has used hacked information to do such.

Basic information that you think can't be used against you, actually can. It makes little difference if your conscience is clean. Many companies are here to sell to the highest bidder, not protect their users.

Who wants their information sold to an enemy of human rights or democracy? To a company that can't keep their credit card profiles safe? Who wants to get targeted simply for having an opinion that opposes a bad actor?


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 14, 2017)

For or against me?

Why would strangers wish me any harm?

Why wouldn't i want tailor-made products?  Why wouldn't i want to know of opportunities i may benefit from the most?

Why are 'saurs so paranoid?

You people just wish somebody cared....


----------



## ShelLuser (Nov 14, 2017)

If you think others are overdoing it when they want to protect their own privacy then you really don't have a clue as to what is going on in the real world.

It's not so much an issue of having something to hide or not, it's what the other party is going to do with all the data. It could be pretty harmless right now, but that is by no means a guarantee for the future. And it never hurts to be careful.

If you don't understand such simple concepts then this is a fruitless discussion up front.

Many Americans were having no problems getting registered and followed under the Obama administration. Then a new president came who had new ideas for using the required information and all of a sudden many Americans weren't so happy anymore. And that's just one out of many examples.

(edit)

For the record, I'm hardly paranoid but I too use ad blockers, a "stop social" plugin which blocks all known social media sites, I have Google analytics permanently in my browsers blacklist and on my FreeBSD desktop heavily utilize the NoScript plugin.

That last critter has helped me plenty of times when a known website was overrun by hackers. All of a sudden their javascript code popped up and I knew something was up. I wasn't suffering because... their stuff didn't execute in the first place.

That too is an issue of not blindly trusting anything you visit, not even known websites.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Nov 14, 2017)

ShelLuser said:


> For the record, I'm hardly paranoid but I too use ad blockers, a "stop social" plugin which blocks all known social media sites, I have Google analytics permanently in my browsers blacklist and on my FreeBSD desktop heavily utilize the NoScript plugin.



You just forgot to say all that crap slow down all the browsing experience. A reasonable amount of wasted resources...

And, people making a lot of money on you and you earning nothing but just being used.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 15, 2017)

ShelLuser said:


> For the record, I'm hardly paranoid but I too use ad blockers, a "stop social" plugin which blocks all known social media sites, I have Google analytics permanently in my browsers blacklist and on my FreeBSD desktop heavily utilize the NoScript plugin.



I'm already on record as believing a little paranoia can be a good thing, but I do not think wanting to protect your data and taking steps to prevent it being harvested qualifies you as being paranoid.

However, if you've taken the time to educate yourself on browser exploits like XSS, JavaScript exploits, not to mention what run of the mill data collection websites, your ISP and other interested party can glean from your machine and it doesn't concern you, it should.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 15, 2017)

ShelLuser said:


> If you think others are overdoing it when they want to protect their own privacy then you really don't have a clue as to what is going on in the real world.
> 
> It's not so much an issue of having something to hide or not, it's what the other party is going to do with all the data. It could be pretty harmless right now, but that is by no means a guarantee for the future. And it never hurts to be careful.
> 
> ...



That's very sensible and all, but my point is: What data?

What is there on your computer that could be of any use to anyone on this planet other than yourself, and maybe your significant other?

What would Russian terrorists do with your family photos, when they have millions of other people's family photos, too?  Do you stand out enough from the crowd to attract these people's attention, and possible misdeeds?  Is your data even meaningful in any sort of way in the first place?

What if I looked through your garbage for a month, and parked a van in front of your place with a laser at your windows, and a high-res camera wherever I can get a field of view...  

What then?

Do you think anyone's going to give themselves the trouble to do that?  Do you think it's worth it?

A good strategy in defense is to sit on the opposite end of the table, and in all likelihood, the solution you're going to come-up with is that no defense is the best defense, because you have nothing to defend, and defenses would only make people believe there might be something behind those doors, and so the best way to not have your doors knocked down is to install french doors (glass doors).

...

What about the backyard neighbors who could see the barbecue you took pictures of?  Couldn't they have taken pictures of it, too?  Or what about the girl you met on your holiday?  Was she a spy trying to get your informashuns?

If you're unable to see how you're meaningless your stuff is among the 7,500,000,000 other people who have the same data you do on the internet, and how you flooding the internet with your meaningless information helps protect others, then this conversation is pointless.


----------



## MarcoB (Nov 15, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> That's very sensible and all, but my point is: What data?


Browser fingerprinting and tracking everything you do on the internet.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 15, 2017)

MarcoB said:


> Browser fingerprinting and tracking everything you do on the internet.



And what would I do with that data?  Tell you what model of car probably suits you the most, saving you shopping time, and possibly disappointment?  Keep you informed about what's important to you, and what interests _you_?

You assume people want to harm, or exploit you.  What if they wanted to help you?  What then?

Against even the remote possibility that someone wants to help you... is it worth "protecting your data" then?  Assess the possibilities that someone would or even could use your information against you, against the possibility that sharing your information could be towards your benefit?  Considering the effort, the mindset it puts you in, the constant fear, constantly being in a defensive stance, ...

Is it worth it?

Are you someone worth harming?

If you think you're worth harming, then you're going to protect yourself, and if you're worth harming, and I'm a vigilante, I'm going to be on to you...  I'm going to perceive your defenses as a good clue that you have something to hide... and if you don't have anything to hide, then you're a decoy.  You're statistically, and effectively, protecting the people who do have something to hide by offering them a crowd to blend into.

All my Facebook posts are public, there's my address, phone number, ...  You can come to my place right now from my profile on here and it won't even take you 90 seconds to find out exactly where I live, and my phone number.

I have nothing to hide, and I don't have much going on in my life, either...  If you want to hang out with me, you also know where I live, if you want to chat, you also have my number to exchange messages, and my Kik...  If someone wants to be my friend, they also have many opportunities and avenues to choose from...

I have more chances to make a friend this way, than in keeping everything private... and a genuine friend, at that!  No first impressions, everything's there...  No masks, no lies, I'm not armed, I've done nothing wrong, I've got nothing to hide, and I'm ready and willing to face my life, myself, other people, and destiny.

Come at me(, bro).


----------



## MarcoB (Nov 15, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> And what would I do with that data?


Not getting a job because the employer thinks you have some illness because he knows you searched for some hospital or disease. Trouble finding an insurance because of that. Some hacker steals your identity. Can be anything really.


----------



## Maxnix (Nov 15, 2017)




----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 15, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> All my Facebook posts are public, there's my address, phone number, ...  You can come to my place right now from my profile on here and it won't even take you 90 seconds to find out exactly where I live, and my phone number.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Come at me(, bro).



This is an aspect of Internet privacy I didn't want to touch on, but since you brought it up.

What a fluffy, pink cloud you must live on... Who needs a reason to harm you? Not that I couldn't pick one out from the various insults you've tossed around freely, had I a mind to.


But I don't. I would rather mentor you than do you harm and won't go further so as not to give anyone any ideas.


----------



## sidetone (Nov 16, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> Against even the remote possibility that someone wants to help you...


 Usually, someone who wants to help you, already knows you, or who you are.



poorandunlucky said:


> saving you shopping time, and possibly disappointment? Keep you informed about what's important to you, and what interests _you_?


Companies are out to make money, and make efficient how they make money off of you. Some help you, but the companies that are helping you, are providing good services for the price, not figuring out how to take your every dollar, to give you as little value as possible, not just when you object.



poorandunlucky said:


> I've done nothing wrong, I've got nothing to hide





poorandunlucky said:


> I have nothing to hide, and I don't have much going on in my life, either...


 Yes, I've said something like that before. I thought I can be completely honest, because I haven't done anything wrong. Then I learned that people will make bad assumptions, based on their own lack of worth, because they don't have the values or principles you have. It doesn't matter how good you are or think you are, or your opinion, most of the population doesn't bother anyone. You have to worry about less than 1% of the population, who you are lucky if you don't come across. And they don't think like the normal person.



poorandunlucky said:


> statistically, and effectively, protecting the people who do have something to hide by offering them a crowd to blend into.


This is how I mildly feel about tor. The only people who belong there are journalists, those living in oppressive countries, and the like, or those doing what they're not supposed to. Others who use it aren't intending to blend in with hiding around the wrong crowd, but out of ignorance. If want to use a proxy, every now and then, use a proxy, but not a proxy like tor. They hold your data for about month, then they are meant to delete it. So, that's meant for if someone does something wrong, they can't hide that.

Look, from some of the retorts you've made, none taken, and I can still learn from your point of view. It doesn't bother me that the government gets metadata which was used for preventing crimes. What bothers me is criminal organizations like Wikileaks exploiting to harm Democracy under some fake guise. What bothers me is how companies like Facebook will psychologically profile you, to be used against you strategically, not for doing anything wrong, but for monetary gain. People have been profiled, for what lies to tell, what false promises to make, what people want and it was used against the American people. Psychological profiling is dangerous, because it's not about if you did something wrong, it's about, what can 1% (on the scale of psychopathy or greed) of the population exploit the rest of the population. Right now I see it as a case of persuading, in the future I see it as a case of exploitation. What rules will they set for credit cards, so that you won't quickly notice how they're cheating you: you can't beat a computer at chess. Do you really have a choice, or do you think you have a choice, if a company brought up what you wanted, based on how it psychologically analyzed you?

Here's two extreme cases: look at the past serial murders in Gaineville. The community did nothing wrong, they aren't special either, but all that took is for some psycho from Louisiana to learn about how idealistic that place was for others, then go there. No one definitely wants their address or community going out like that for that to happen for some cynical reason.
The other case is exploitation: someone will extort money or worse, because of pictures that were private. They try to extort celebrities for money all the time. Criminals even try to exploit people to go into slavery, or they will put their photos out. In which case, it's better to let the world see naked pictures, than be subject to that. I don't have to worry about those, but those are real case scenarios.


----------



## metsuke (Nov 16, 2017)

Depending on where you live, putting the details of any portion of your life online can be dangerous.  There are many countries that actively scrape the internet, and especially social media sites, to find dissenters of the ruling party.  An easy way to categorize and maybe eliminate political/religious enemies is to check what they believe in their own words.

Social and cultural shifts can quickly change policy and law in a nation.  What was once legal can be illegal the next day, and what was once a valid viewpoint can become punishable by jail or death.  Even if you delete your profile on social media sites, the data is still most likely archived and searchable by whomever has power.

I'm not saying that everyone everywhere is in imminent danger if they don't have good privacy etiquette.  However, some people today, even people I know personally, would be arrested (or worse) in their nation state if they wrote about what they actually believed on a social media page.  Big Brother is only getting bigger, and such circumstances may be coming to a municipality or nation near you.  Trading privacy for convenience now will leave no protection against oppression in the future.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 16, 2017)

But in trying to be with people who are like-minded, I don't mind getting rid of the people who don't get me, or who disapprove of me,what I do, or what I think..  They can go be with people who understand them, and I can go be with people who like me, and hopefully this will lead to everyone having positive relationships...

Knowing that companies are gathering my info to sell me stuff is enough to protect myself against that...  I can easily identify when they try to pull that one off...

Sure, there are passive-aggressive little f- in the world, and sure, not everyone's acting for the well-being of others, but your customers are not going to bring you income if they're not healthy, or wealthy... so it's a very fundamental business - even as far as drug dealers are concerned - that your customers' well-being is your profit... whether your business is healthcare or armaments, it's in your best interest to invest in your customers' well-being... simply because it's those horses who end-up putting the food on your table...  Healthier horses, better food...

Fear is contagious, though... maybe you guys just hang out with the wrong crowd...

I'm not saying to tempt the devil, either... and I guess you should just be yourself, and live the way you want...

My only point, though, was just that most people don't really have to concern themselves with security and privacy, nor take any extraordinary measures to protect themselves...  I think the chances OP gets a heart attack from the added fictional stress he imagines exists are a lot greater than the chances anything at all ever happens to him from his information or in link to his computer... security or otherwise...


----------



## ShelLuser (Nov 16, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> All my Facebook posts are public, there's my address, phone number, ...  You can come to my place right now from my profile on here and it won't even take you 90 seconds to find out exactly where I live, and my phone number.


So what do you think could happen if you announced that you were going on a vacation?

I glossed over this at first when I noticed someone else quoting it. Be very, _very_, careful there. Not everyone has the best of intentions.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 16, 2017)

ShelLuser said:


> Be very, _very_, careful there. Not everyone has the best of intentions.



Mine are good, that's why I didn't and won't elaborate on the possibilities, but you are correct, sir. 

There are search engines devoted to finding what poorandunlucky has freely put out there about himself.


----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 16, 2017)

... nothing?

What do you imagine could happen?

My neighbors are going to watch over my stuff while I'm gone, maybe the people over there are going to be waiting for me, or would have something ready for me when I get there, ...

I don't know...  Nobody's supposed to be reading my Facebook other than my boyfriend, though...  I specify that at regular intervals...  If you read it even just a bit you'll realize it's all messages addressed to one person in particular, and that they don't concern anyone else than me and him...  If you read my Facebook without making your presence known, you have a serious problem, and it's called stalking, or spying, and the fact that you know about my Facebook and read it tells me you're a creep, and I should keep away from you...  It's a way I can protect myself, too...  In real life.  I don't care about computers....  Other than that, you can see that I don't have much of a life other than my significant other, skateboarding, my xbox, and my teddy bears... and computer problems....  And other than that, it's somewhere you can get my phone number and my address from my name...  It's a phone book...

I'm in the phone book....  oh my god...

I'm going to bed.


----------



## sidetone (Nov 16, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> Nobody's supposed to be reading my Facebook other than my boyfriend, though...  I specify that at regular intervals...  If you read it even just a bit you'll realize it's all messages addressed to one person in particular, and that they don't concern anyone else than me and him...  If you read my Facebook without making your presence known, you have a serious problem, and it's called stalking, or spying, and the fact that you know about my Facebook and read it tells me you're a creep, and I should keep away from you...


His name is Mark Zuckerberg. 
(Ok, that was a joke.)


----------



## rigoletto@ (Nov 16, 2017)

Your boyfriend, Zuckerberg, and everyone who paid Facebook to have access to user data using some api. What could also include some people making money from scam and others shady activities.


----------



## ronaldlees (Nov 16, 2017)

These things may be seen as trivial, when they are viewed as stand alone concepts, but in aggregation these trivials add up until one of them is the last straw on the camel's back.  So, a screenshot may be a straw in that sense.

Depending on your perspective, FF may be bloated.  Everything's relative.  But, we live in an era where the bloat is being baked into the  machinery, and increasingly it's being set as a  mandatory dependency to do pretty basic things.  For some internet activities, relating to specific sites, I simply cannot get the job done without some of that bloat.  I try to rely on text-mode or js-free browsing when I can, but that doesn't cover everything.

Additionally, as these things become more complicated, there will be fewer alternatives due to the barrier-to-entry (that is - the complication).  The Web-assembly thing is another chunk of "stuff" that is part of this troubling, growing trend (pun intended).


----------



## Birdy (Nov 16, 2017)

poorandunlucky said:


> I have nothing to hide, and I don't have much going on in my life, either...



Please consider these, because too important:

Edward Snowden: What I say to people who don't care of privacy.

Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters.

_"Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will."_
- Joseph Goebbels


----------



## sidetone (Nov 16, 2017)

Snowden and Greenwald are paranoid self serving self-inflating hypocrites. They act so scared as if they are defending something, yet they easily hand off data to one of the most oppresive countries.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Nov 16, 2017)




----------



## poorandunlucky (Nov 17, 2017)

lebarondemerde said:


>



My cell phone isn't a toy in my crib, though..  I'm quite aware what I post and don't post online...  And while I do believe in things like humans' ability to sense things in the quantum field, I'm not about to believe there's going to be a mind reader in a white tent on the street...

come on, those people are idiots to begin with...

"OMG, my bank is trying to tell me there's a problem with that Tahitian prince trying to wire me my shares from the gold mine... how convenient!"

That's convenient.

Screenshots?  Not so much... posting screenshots is hard for most people, and does take me more than the 5 seconds it would take me using Firefox' implementation, and it is sometimes frustrating when there's a size limitation and I'm trying to post a 1920x1280 PNG or something...

Nigerian prince?  Bank on Facebook?  Mind reader on the street in a white tent?  Those are obviously scams.  Mozilla trying to see how people use their product?  Not so much...


----------



## Birdy (Nov 24, 2017)

sidetone said:


> Snowden and Greenwald are paranoid self serving self-inflating hypocrites...



QED?


----------

