✨ Feature Suggestion | Browser Battles

[angela-d]

Description:

#856 has become too long.

Since there is seemingly an endless debate on what browsers are featured, could the moderators / team members of PTIO finally lay it out on what requirements have to be met in order for a browser to be featured?

Alot of the arguments are stemming from what appears to be personal preference. Why Brave and Firefox? Both aren't pro-privacy by any stretch of the imagination (I think the end goal for Brave is to get there, but it doesn't appear as though they're there yet - any topic I've seen about Google components seems to have indirect answers for how much remains or was taken out.)

None of the three are perfect for privacy, yet being featured on a site like PTIO, many users take the suggestion at face value.

• If somebody logs into their bank account while using Tor, is Tor still the best suggestion?
• Even though Mozilla has privacy blunder after privacy blunder, should they still be a top recommendation?
• Even though Brave Phones home to Google they're a top mention?

I am not arguing for removal of any of these browsers, they all have good and bad attributes -- the reason I cite these examples:

• Why aren't any of the smaller, open source projects offered alongside them, that may not have these same issues?

Many arguments point to the fact Pale Moon, Waterfox, IceCat or Seamonkey have smaller teams and/or aren't "privacy focused" (but Mozilla is? You have to spend a half hour disabling crap on a vanilla Firefox install)

Why aren't there a list of pro's & cons for the top mentions plus smaller alternatives?

What if the developer of Pale Moon or Waterfox die?

What if Mozilla sells out to Google? (As they have and will continue to do!) My counter-argument:

• If you throw a list of facts at the visitor and explain the pros & cons / project size, the user makes an informed choice.
• Sure, the user may never return to PTIO to see if the suggestion was revoked, but so what? You gave them all you know about the project(s) and the user decided for themselves how much risk they wish to take based on the level of privacy they expect from their browser
• As it stands, these 3 browsers are recommended without any real reason, short of a brief synopsis as to why they're listed. You're luring people into a false sense of privacy.

I don't think there's a one-size fits all browser for privacy. None of the top 3, or even Pale Moon, Waterfox or IceCat fit every scenario for every person. Each person should be able to arm themselves with knowledge and make an informed decision. As of right now, you're essentially telling them 3 large projects are all that's out there. What's the purpose of keeping smaller projects from being listed?

I've seen Brave referred to as basically a shoe-in, "because some users prefer a Chrome base, if we exclude them, we'll drive them right back to Chrome" - so why not Ungoogled Chromium, too? Why does it have to be Brave and no other Chromium-based forks?

[abbluiz]

If one is inclined, one can install Firefox with all the defaults set to be privacy-focused. I would suggest working on a guide on how to install Firefox with all the default config set to good privacy options. PTIO could mantain their own version of user.js file or Firefox install script and the user would be one click/script run away of having a better privacy-focused browser

[Mikaela]

Potential duplicate or subset of https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/780 ?

[angela-d]

@Mikaela I would say its a subset. My post is primarily a suggestion to list the smaller forks alongside the bigger projects - with facts of why the browser was suggested.

@abbluiz

If one is inclined, one can install Firefox with all the defaults set to be privacy-focused.

You can do a lot to Firefox to make it private - but my point is that those are not defaults and such changes are not sanctioned by Mozilla. So championing Firefox as a privacy king is nonsense.

Lately (business as usual, for them), Mozilla's been doing very questionable things regarding privacy, such as enabling ping tracking by default and defaulting DNS queries to Cloudflare.

[beerisgood]

@angela-d so you prefer a non customized browser against a fully customized?

Yes Mozilla make some bad things but at same time good things too.

Also it's better to use Mozilla/cloudflare DNS then Google DNS. Can you chance that in chrome/ chromium forks?

[angela-d]

@angela-d so you prefer a non customized browser against a fully customized?

I am not sure where you would get that from.

Also it's better to use Mozilla/cloudflare DNS then Google DNS. Can you chance that in chrome/ chromium forks?

You're missing my point. Why aren't any of the smaller forks listed? Be in Firefox forks or Chromium forks.

[jonaharagon]

Can you chance that in chrome/ chromium forks?

Chrome does not have built-in DNS servers at all, unlike Firefox. Chrome will use your system's DNS servers, as all browsers should. DNS is an OS issue, not a browser issue, so I'm not sure why Mozilla is messing with it in the first place. I 100% agree Mozilla has been making some super questionable decisions lately with regard to privacy.

[beerisgood]

@angela-d forks aren't listed because of security. They're always behind the mainline

@jonaharagon If Google doesn't use their DNS yet (which i can't believe), they will include it. Please test it:
https://dnsleaktest.com & https://www.grc.com/dns/dns.htm
Also even if Mozilla/ Cloudflare DNS isn't the best, it still protect your DNS with encryption and it can be changed/ disabled

[angela-d]

@angela-d forks aren't listed because of security. They're always behind the mainline

The argument can also be made, privacy tools is about privacy first; while collaborative, privacy and security are not the same thing.

Which is also why I suggest a chart, comparing pros & cons of the big browsers alongside the small forks. Let the user decide which best fits their threat model.

Mozilla proves time and again they're treading dangerous waters with users' privacy.

If Google doesn't use their DNS yet (which i can't believe)

Why is it hard to believe? DNS should be a networking/OS issue and the browser has no business touching it, unless the user goes ahead and makes the change themselves. The fact Google isn't meddling with it, should be an indication of out insane it is that Mozilla thinks this is a good idea. If it were opt-in, it would be - but one can't expect that to be the case (like Pocket) once it becomes a feature. Mozilla knows best.

[beerisgood]

It's so hard to believe cause Google gives a shit about privacy.
Mozilla have some bad configs too but you can change/ config everything. Not so in chrome/ chromium

[angela-d]

Mozilla have some bad configs too but you can change/ config everything.

For now. The route they're headed, this is not a promised future. Hence the request for an explanation as to why smaller forks are not also posted.

Not so in chrome/ chromium

I won't disagree, but if the justification for Brave being posted is because it has a Chromium base, what's wrong with Ungoogled Chromium, too?

[beerisgood]

Ungoogled Chromium is Chromium too and even doesn't remove all Google shit.

Edge restart, building on chromium may the only build which remove all Google stuff.
No other done this yet

[Atavic]

If somebody logs into their bank account while using Tor, is Tor still the best suggestion?

That's a wrong use of Tor.

Even though Mozilla has privacy blunder after privacy blunder, should they still be a top recommendation?

Debatable, still the leading alternative to Google.

Even though Brave Phones home to Google they're a top mention?

Moreover Brave is a walled garden.

IceCat is the best choice, it has privacy addons bundled.

[angela-d]

If somebody logs into their bank account while using Tor, is Tor still the best suggestion?

That's a wrong use of Tor.

Sure it is, but how its displayed on PTIO, a privacy newbie would not know that.

IceCat is the best choice, it has privacy addons bundled.

That's debatable too, as its updated more infrequently than Waterfox and stuff the non-free JS extension that is default will be overwhelming to your average user, since the majority of the web now runs on bloated JS code.

The point of this thread is to get info from Privacy Tools mods/team members to explain why no smaller forks are listed. Which is superior or Mozilla vs Chromium-based I don't think is very relevant! They all have their flaws and some have better strengths than others in some areas. None are perfect.

To be honest, I think that the criticisms towards Mozilla here are a bit overstated. They have certainly made some blunders in the past, but these can more accurately be described as tone-deaf PR blunders rather than privacy blunders.

Regarding Mozilla's use of Google Analytics and Cloudflare, they have special contracts with both of these companies that require them to treat user data gathered in a strict, separate way that respects user privacy. To suggest that they do otherwise is conspiracy theory type thinking, given the compliance requirements in that sort of contract, the substantial penalties within it, and the lack of evidence that there is any breach. Companies do obey contracts and have large legal and compliance teams for this very purpose. I would suggest that Privacy Tools needs to adopt an evidence-based approach in this regard.

In particular, using Cloudflare DoH is actually a big win for user privacy imo, because users can get their DNS traffic encrypted within the browser, gain the benefit of encrypted sni and DNSSEC and be certain that Cloudflare is contractually required to respect their privacy. Relying on users to make these private choices and configurations regarding DNS is just not realistic given how difficult these can be to setup and given that most users have never heard of DNS. Relying on sane default platform choices is also not going to happen for the majority of users when most platforms are owned by advertising and proprietary software companies. Given that for most people, this is the only way in the foreseeable future for their DNS traffic to be encrypted, this should be considered a net win. Doubly so, when there are an increasing number of jurisdictions with mandatory data retention and ISP commercial data gathering. There is some legitimate risk that the small amount of data that Cloudflare is able to collect will be subpoenaed, but this could happen to an ISP or other DNS or VPN provider as well. Many ISPs and GPAs rely on unencrypted DNS traffic to track and retain, censor and maliciously impersonate in the status quo regardless.

Regarding the Firefox forks (excepting Icecat and Tor Browser), I have always encouraged users not to use them. The improvements that Waterfox makes can be done through preferences, or a user.js file, as all of the eme, telemetry and pocket features can be disabled if a user is so inclined. Clang is also already the primary compiler for all tier 1 Firefox platforms.

In exchange for it's marginally better defaults, the tradeoff is essentially getting to forking Python 2 level of insane. XUL and NPAPI are both completely unmaintained. What used to be supported by a team of professional developers and a massive dedicated security team, is now being supported by only a handful of community developers with no security team. This is not sustainable, and the only reason widespread breaches haven't occurred is that the userbase is too small. The other issue is the tardiness and selectivity of security updates, given the size of the dev team and the differences from upstream.

Palemoon is even worse, as almost every factor discussed regarding Waterfox applies to Palemoon on a much larger scale. As they are not even attempting to keep up with upstream, they are already incompatible with a large portion of the web. Due to this large divergence from upstream, their maintenance burden is much higher, and maintaining security is much harder for the same reasons as above, with similar limitations in their project. Even the addon situation is not great as the userbase is so small that many of the few addons that remain compatible are essentially just languishing without substantial development, and many users have always resorted to old unmaintained addons.

Given the the big security disadvantages of the forks, compared to the small benefit in waterfox of perhaps more private defaults, it cannot be recommended. Palemoon perhaps also has marginally more private defaults, but no part of it could be considered "sane". If users really want to make these changes to Firefox, then a user.js file is the way to go.

Decent security practices are also a key feature in maintaining privacy and are a key responsibility of a project like this that makes recommendations that users trust.

I won't even get into the fact that I don't think any Chromium-based browser should be recommended here.