Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Phorm Talk |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| Chrome Google suggest "keylogger" bad, IE8 beta search bar "keylogger' not so bad. | ||
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy, revrob
|
| Author | Post | ||
| VforVendetta |
| ||
 Registered Member #281 Joined: Wed Apr 02 2008, 11:59PMPosts: 620 | Are you browser aware?Unlike Chrome, IE8 Beta 2 does not enable the feature - which some have compared to a keylogger - by default. One privacy expert said that was a "huge difference."Don't be complacent if you are using Firefox Google search, or the Google Search application on your iPhone. Google's Chrome browser has run into more privacy complaints and the search giant is moving to ease complaints about its Google Suggest feature used in Chrome and other products.PS If you have installed a search toolbar, then you already know you are being tracked, don't you? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| madslug |
| ||
  Registered Member #266 Joined: Tue Apr 01 2008, 01:11PMPosts: 800 | The annoying thing is that even using proxy services results in everything you do being sold on to someone else. Browsers are free and cost a lot to produce and host for downloading. If advertising does not help to fund them, will that pose an even bigger risk to our security? Suddenly paying a few pennies for iCab (Mac only) does not seem to be such a bad option. The solution appears to be to complain to websites that host tracking scripts. Better still, boycott them. If there are tracking scripts, buying anything online from them or interacting in any way that could reveal personal data is definitely something to avoid. The question is, does avoiding all the tracking make the internet unusable? - if it does, what needs to change to bring it back to being the wonderful resource it started out to be? When was the last time you read "morons in web space"? - http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace While you are reading the article, consider that it was written quite a few years back - 2002 - and has been edited very little since, if at all. wrote ... "Unnecessary use of cookies is annoying Requiring people to accept cookies is bad enough, without ramming masses of them down their throat. You do not “need” to send a cookie with every image on the page, nor should you be doing that. Cookies should be used sparingly, if at all. I'm sick of encountering pages where I have to click on thirty-odd cookie prompts, and so are many others. No, we're not going to blindly accept all cookies; there's far too many malicious uses of them to promote that behaviour. If anything, we're going to block annoying cookies. There are better ways to do things than rely on the user to store and return data. It's often used as a breach of our privacy, and relying on the integrity of the data is leaving the server wide open to errors and abuse (editing the contents of cookies is easy to do; users will, and should, frequently remove clutter from their drives; and it can lead to private data, about the user, being stored on a computer that's not theirs). Services which send cookies, and have to wait for responses, particularly lots of them, are also damn slow. Making some services incredibly tedious to use." | ||
| Back to top | | ||
Powered by e107 Forum System