Hacker News Reader

Comment by udev4096 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

No, it doesn't. It obeys Google's long-term development strategy for the OS. Google and privacy are absolutely incompatible. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439

Google has implemented lots of privacy and security features in AOSP over time. The app sandbox and permission model has evolved a lot, in a good direction. The codebase is also modernized with the increasing adoption of memory safe code. At least Google seemes to have a thought out development strategy to enhance security and privacy, contrary to the projects you mentioned elsewhere in this Hacker News thread.

Also, what you link doesnt prove what you think it does. Manifest V3 is a very good thing for privacy and security. It restricts and controls the access of extensions much more. With MV2 you have much less control over your data.

Every reasonable, independent organization confirms that Manifest V3 is the end of privacy for Chrom(ium) users, e.g.,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44543660

> It restricts and controls the access of extensions much more.

You mean, it restricts users even more and gives to websites the freedom to track you? I won't engage in further discussion with you, you're just trolling.

You link three things, that doesnt equate to "every independent organization". One of your links is a post by Brave and Brave isnt independent in this. The unsubstantiated fear of people for MV3 is beneficial for them, it could grow their userbase because they keep the support for MV2.

Content blocking (ad and "tracker" blocking) are convenience features, they dont foundationally improve security. Defining what a tracker is is difficult and you cant list them exhaustively. Also smart businesses and organisations can just shift to sending all data to the main domain and handling it server side to send it onwards to other domains, including third-party domains. If you dont trust a site to not send data to third party domains directly, why do you trust it to not send it indirectly?

No, I meam it restricts extensions because it does. Vouching for MV2 is like vouching for an Android OS without a proper permission model. MV3 helps against tracking, its good for privacy and security. If you want the convience of content blocking, uBlock Lite still works good enoough for many people. Though, you still lose on security and meaningful privacy (again, define a tracker and list them all, impossible) because extensions in general hurt site isolation and increase your fingerpint.

> You link three things, that doesnt equate to "every independent organization".

Seriouslu, is this the only counter-argument you could invent? I didn't have the goal to list all independent organizations in the world. Now, you have to find one saying the opposite to EFF.

> If you dont trust a site to not send data to third party domains directly, why do you trust it to not send it indirectly?

Because there were examples when 3rd-party ads delivered malware to clients: https://www.networkworld.com/article/946902/forbes-malware-a...

Also, because FBI recommends it: https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-b...

> MV3 helps against tracking

Against tracking by whom? By FLOSS add-ons intentionally installed by user and verified by the community? In contrast to random, untrusted websites running megabytes of proprietary JS?

Ad blocking is necessary to avoid malware and spyware which is spread by google adsense all the time. It's not just convenient, most trackers won't go out of their way to improve their tracking if a few users start blocking it. Get real and stop parroting

This is true.

Many more care about neither,

or intermittently care about neither,

than most take into account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com