Dear all,while I now understand the rationale for the dependency on adblock plus, recent media reports on the company behind this extension give rise for real concern. If you read German, please consider reading the following recent articles:
http://wissen.dradio.de/adblock-plus-mafia-verhalten-im-werbenetzwerk.33.de.html?dram:article_id=251092 http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-in-ein-mafioeses-werbenetzwerk/ and https://netzpolitik.org/2013/adblock-plus-ein-produkt-der-werbeindustrie/It appears that Eyeo GmbH, company based in Cologne (Köln), Germany with 15 employess, which is developing the extension is itself deeply invested in the advertisement industry which suggests a massive conflict of interest.
A usable alternative is the fork "Adblock Edge"The company has of course rejected all allegations, see http://meedia.de/internet/adblock-plus-ein-mafioeses-werbenetzwerk/2013/06/26.html
Thanks, Johannes Am 18.06.2013 13:17, schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
On 18/06/13 11:55, Johannes Rohr wrote:Am Dienstag, den 18.06.2013, 11:08 +0200 schrieb Jordi Mallach:El dt 18 de 06 de 2013 a les 08:50 +0200, en/na Johannes Rohr va escriure:Now, maybe there is a good reason to include this package into the GNOME desktop metapackage, but if there is one, I'd like to know what it is. What is the rationale behind this decision? How do you define what is part of GNOME and what isn't?meta-gnome3 (1:3.4+3) unstable; urgency=low [...] * Install iceweasel instead of epiphany :( See bug#682481. * Let gnome recommend iceweasel-l10n-all. * Require firefox extensions that match epiphany functionality: keyring, adblock.Thanks for filling me in! At the same time, there seem to be no open security related RC bugs file against epiphany in Debian at this time: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=epiphany-browser;tag=securityThe problem is rather with webkit in general and/or webkitgtk+ in particular. Emilio