Brave browser blocks Windows feature that takes screenshots of everything you do on your PC
-
They haven't blocked the windows feature, they're using DRM to interfere with it. Microsoft could easily change how the DRM works any time they want, rendering all these hacks useless.
They could, but Disney..
-
The only two there that bother me are the affiliate code thing (reminds me of the Honey drama) and installing extra software without consent. The first was a bad call and probably related with how their ad replacement stuff works (if anything, they should merely axe affiliate links; Firefox has that as an option), and this"solution" to the latter is pretty odd to me:
reinstall the browser without admin rights
Why would a browser need admin rights in the first place? I haven't used Windows in well over a decade, so I don't think that particular one would be an issue for me.
The rest can be grouped as:
- bugs - bug fixes generally don't get prioritized until enough users complain; I would be very picky if I was an at risk person (activist or whatever) and would probably only use Tor browser
- opt-in services
- their marketing department
My options for chromium browsers are:
- something with ineffective ad blocking
- Opera - I used it before it became a chromium browser, then it went downhill; not FOSS
- Brave, with all its warts
Since ad blocking and FOSS are my prerequisites, Brave basically wins by default.
Just block with unlock
why choose browser based on a ad block feature that is worse (injecting own ads/adware and therefore trying to dictate who is allowed to grab your attention) than the ad blocking extension?I recommend Firefox, due to best compatibility with uBlock (fuck manifest v3) and additionally have a DNS filter in your network, like pihole or adguard.
On the go, use wireguard VPN to always be digitally home, and get your ads blocked (as well as tracking organisations) like that.
-
So, you're saying that browsing history, in literally any browser on the market, is a bug not a feature?
surreptitiously
Oh, wait, I actually missed that! How is something that you need to purposefully turn on "surreptitious"? Like... Holy fuck, people, this is supposed to be the community of tech-literate people, so maybe stop fear-mongering in read about Recall a bit? It's opt-in, it's limited to a (as of now) extremely small number of NPU-carrying devices, it's offline.
If you don't like it, just don't fucking turn it on.
It's a good thing that microsoft is trustworthy and you can believe everything they say. And that malware never misuses resources of the system on which it is installed.
-
Just block with unlock
why choose browser based on a ad block feature that is worse (injecting own ads/adware and therefore trying to dictate who is allowed to grab your attention) than the ad blocking extension?I recommend Firefox, due to best compatibility with uBlock (fuck manifest v3) and additionally have a DNS filter in your network, like pihole or adguard.
On the go, use wireguard VPN to always be digitally home, and get your ads blocked (as well as tracking organisations) like that.
I recommend Firefox
So do I, that's my main. Brave is my backup for the handful of sites that don't like Firefox.
-
It's a good thing that microsoft is trustworthy and you can believe everything they say. And that malware never misuses resources of the system on which it is installed.
Recall sits in a secure vault behind BitLocker encryption secured with Windows Hello.
BitLocker+Windows Hello gets broken through, the world has a much larger problem than some screenshots, because that's the foundation of, like, 80% of enterprise security.
If you're afraid that an attacker sits on your PC and just waits for you to unlock the vault, then you already have the PC breached to the point where they don't have to do that, they already have access to everything else.
If you're afraid of the feature in anyway, don't use it.
-
Actual optional things are disabled by default.
So you're saying you haven't bothered to read about Recall at all, you just assumed it's going to be enabled by default?
-
Optional like how it reminds me every 3 days that it wants my info for "customization" purposes, and I can only sleep the notification for another 3 days instead of telling it to fuck off?
They have been so predatory, at this point no one should see anything they do as benefiting end users.
If it does that, outrage will be understandable.
Getting outraged about something they said will be 100% optional and hasn't even released yet is just childish.
-
And how do you know it's not malicious in nature? I'd like to know what your definition of "malicious" is if you're just fine with letting a Corpo run system look at everything you're doing.
And how do you know it’s not malicious in nature?
Because I have a functioning brain.
I’d like to know what your definition of “malicious” is
Malware is designed to hurt you by extracting your personal information or resources.
Telemetry is designed to give developers feedback about product/functionality usage and is anonymous.
you’re just fine with letting a Corpo run system look at everything you’re doing.
I'm not, and it's not. Unlike you, I actually checked what data telemetry gathers and I'm perfectly fine with it. It's inconsequential and anonymous.
-
Well, semantically yes, not all telemetry is spyware. However regarding Windows telemetry it's indistinguishable from spyware - you have no idea nor control over the data gathered, measured and processed.
The crux is that Windows telemetry is opt out, opting out can't be done during installation, and historically opting out wasn't sticky. Additionally some Windows telemetry is still being sent despite opting out.
That makes Windows telemetry fulfill all spyware criteria.
However regarding Windows telemetry it’s indistinguishable from spyware - you have no idea nor control over the data gathered, measured and processed
Ah, so you're another one of those fear-mongers?
Here's the Required Diagnostic Events Fields (required telemetry) documentation.
Keeping in mind that it's anonymous - which parts of this are you so vehemently against sending to Microsoft?
That makes Windows telemetry fulfill all spyware criteria.
The shittiest spyware in history, I guess, considering it's all anonymous...
-
diagnostic
I think it is useful to send crash reports, but the user should have power over it (see: when macOS generates a crash report, it asks the user if they would like to send it)
engagement measuring
That is your data they are taking to make money off of without your consent, and I consider that malicious. There are ways to do that with consent. See: Steam’s annual hardware survey
That is your data they are taking to make money off of without your consent
I mean... They're a for-profit company, so literally anything they do is to make money.
But it's not "my data", it's anonymous. The "engagement" info is in relation to features. That's why some features are removed - because nobody uses them. Or rather: not enough people use them to warrant maintenance.
-
You consider actual, literal spyware as being merely telemetry?
What are you talking about now?
-
Microsoft is known for making things “optional” at first then eventually forcing it down everyone’s throats. Removing offline accounts is one of them.
It’s not so much the technology itself is malware, but its behavior replicates that of malware.
Right. So you're all panicking just in case.
That's what's being swept under the rug as "alarmists being loud".
-
Recall sits in a secure vault behind BitLocker encryption secured with Windows Hello.
BitLocker+Windows Hello gets broken through, the world has a much larger problem than some screenshots, because that's the foundation of, like, 80% of enterprise security.
If you're afraid that an attacker sits on your PC and just waits for you to unlock the vault, then you already have the PC breached to the point where they don't have to do that, they already have access to everything else.
If you're afraid of the feature in anyway, don't use it.
You trust microsoft implicitly no matter what they do, I get it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Now whilst I enjoy all the comments I actually have to add something quickly that explains why this kind of thing happens. I recently worked with a rather old lady to find out why she was having so many issues with technology and stuff. I found out that when she started work in 1986 she was told that the shared password in her department at the local hospital was "password" and so she has used that on everything she can since to remember it... other gems that they used on whole departments included "qwerty" and "123456" and the best one of all "letmeinnow". On whole shared networks of 100+ machines...
-
BUT... most people really don't care about that, they just want to remove ads from facebook or youtube or whatever...
My clients couldn't care less about what the CEO does, heck they still think facebook is the dogs danglies and youtube is cutting edge plus Netflix is the best streaming service.
Fighting that is way harder than then trying to explain that some software is worse than others. Heck plenty still use Photoshop because they don't understand that alternatives exist and "everyone at work uses it" -
You trust microsoft implicitly no matter what they do, I get it.
I don't. I read tech specs and security analyses. You just stick your head in the sand whenever someone says "Microsoft", though. It's silly.
-
Well, you certainly need to be in a specific state of mind for this to make any sense...
I've been dosing too much tux, doc. My mind's all FOSSY.
-
The fact that the dev behind brave is a homophobe isn't opt in though...
If you only use software that is created by people you like... well... i guess your only choice will be an abacus...
-
They shit on it because just like Mozilla, they made some shit decision by making some shady partnerships, and because the CEO is transphobic/homophobic/can't remember
Apart from the usual bullshit and antifeatures it has, it's still a great browser choice, just like Firefox
wrote last edited by [email protected]I just think the idea of your alternative being partially coded by the company you're attempting to avoid is a little stupid. I don't give a shit who he is. I barely give a shit who runs Mozilla.
Brave and every other Chromium fork are at the mercy of Google to exist as an alternative to Google, which to me, defeats the point. Every bit of their effort would be better spent rolling their money over to donate to browser development rather than band-aids.
-
If you only use software that is created by people you like... well... i guess your only choice will be an abacus...
I don't care if I like them. I very much care if I'm making money for people who are actively trying to take away my rights
