Re: Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:50:18PM +0000, Christoph Riehl wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > > POST
> https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2&key=no-google-api-key
> > > > + a few dozens of GET requests to https://safebrowsing.google.com/
> > > >
> > > > So nothing serious here. It's just casually violating your privacy.
> > >
> > > I disagree that the safebrowsing part is not serious, especially
> considering
> > > that it continues to send a message there on every new page you
> visit. Best
> > > case the only thing that happens is that Google checks that you
> aren't visiting
> > > a dangerous site. But really? Does anyone believe that Google
> does not store
> > > this data to monitor browsing habits?
> >
> > FUD is easy. How about documenting yourself on how Safe browsing
> > actually works? Hint: urls are _never_ sent to Google. The worst thing
> > that Google can know is that the _hash_ of /some/ url you went to,
> has the
> > first n bits matching the first n bits of the hash of one (or multiple)
> > of the known malware of phishing urls. Nothing more.
>
> Yeah, it's not like google would have a giant scanning tool that
> downloads the content, processes, parses, classifies every web page out
> there.
> Google will of course never ever generate and store in one of their
> databases a hash of the url of each page they process. No, never ever
> they will do that.
> Also, google will never ever store your requests. They never store
> anything for tra(ffi)cking.
Let's say they do. So what? The only thing they can get from the first n
bits of the hash is that you visited one of possibly hundreds of
thousands of urls with the same hash first n bits that also matches the
first n bits of the hash of some known malware. Wow, that's going to
make tracking so much easier than, say, ads or analytics.
Mike
Reply to: