164
Warning to all Brave Browser Users
(infosec.exchange)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
164 points (93.2% liked)
Privacy
31971 readers
306 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I disagree. Firefox is fine, but saying chromium is spyware because its primarily maintained by google is like saying android is spyware.
Additionally chromium browsers are arguably more secure than Firefox, and has more advanced sand boxing. So much so that graphine OS used chromium instead of Firefox for their vanadium browser.
Only thing I agree with is not using brave.. Cause well.. They fishy.
android is spyware
And I'm sure you only use twofish because the NSA backdoored AES when they standardized it.
what does it have to do with Google's business model being mass-surveillance, and/or them being caught several times collaborating with the NSA, the US army, etc.?
I agree that the NSA backdooring stuff is a problem too... (or even a different facet of the same problem...) Yet, one doesn't invalidate the other...
I'm just saying that collaboration with or association with spooks or glowies isn't in itself a red flag.
Many privacy and freedom granting software is made by these people.
Take Tor for example, made by the navy to hide information from the public and anonymously attack networks of adversaries.. Yet now is the NSA's biggest obstacle in mass surveillance.
I beg to disagree: the global interception capacities of the NSA in 2012 (as showed in the very few 2013 documents from Ed. Snowden that were made public) clearly were enough to routinely de-anonymize tor. By owning a certain percentage of the global internet traffic, you de facto own tor (can very precisely correlate what comes in and what goes out, and do that retrospectively when needed).
and that was 10+ years aog....
Association with spooks is a red flag, for the multiple, endless ways they have been doing their shitfuckery, endangering the general public, the exceptional US citizens, and information/communication security at large... by weakening standards, by corrupting corporations to introduce (or leave open) some bugs, by infiltrating development teams, by pressuring operators to grant full access, by breaking and entering, etc..
Anyone who doesnt see that as a problem has to be considered as part of it. Simple, basic rule.