Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

steve_v · 2024-06-04 05:31:16

quickfur wrote:

in these days of IoT devices that come built in with WiFi connectors and other phone-home devices, you can't even be sure about privacy anymore even if you didn't personally connect your devices online: they can and do automatically connect themselves.

If they have a path to the internet at large, which they won't if you properly secure your wireless AP.
They could of course come with a cell modem, but that's relatively expensive and would require cooperation from a cellular carrier. Manufacturers of two-bit crap don't like to spend any more than they need to, and the reason many devices have onboard wifi is that it costs nothing because it's built into the SoC they're using.

The real solution of course is not to purchase IoT garbage to begin with, such things tend to be bottom-dollar never-patched security nightmares even on a good day.

quickfur wrote:

One of my son's stuffed teddy bears came with a built-in Wi-Fi interface that I didn't even know existed until someone managed to download a custom voice clip into it. It's only a small step from this to a toy that contains a hidden microphone and transmitter that uploads your conversations to some unknown server somewhere out there.

Yes yes, old news, such toys already exist (microphone included). Don't allow them to connect to your wireless (infrastructure), and don't have devices around that mindlessly try to connect to open networks in general (ad-hoc). Better yet, don't buy them to begin with.

Nobody makes talking teddy bears or "smart" toasters internet capable to spy on you, they do it because "cloud" is the cheapest possible way to implement the features they think will sell more units or because it allows them to milk you for some kind of subscription service.
The most effective thing you can do about this practice is to vote with your wallet and not buy such things.

zapper wrote:

My goal is more to protest

Riiiight. Who exactly do you think is noticing your "protest"? The same people whose "eyes" you are "opening" with constant whining and opining that "somebody" needs to do "something" about [childish adjective of the day] "evil" corporation?

Buying an off-the-shelf router and installing openwrt on it isn't protesting, the manufacturer made a sale and that's all they care about.
If you want to protest, go organise a protest.

If you ask me, the relentless ill-informed tinfoil-hat noise on this board is the biggest problem with Devuan right now. It's leading the wider community to view the whole distro as a "fringe OS for conspiracy theorists", and people are laughing at us. Please stop already, it's embarrassing.

Last edited by steve_v (2024-06-04 07:04:53)

soren · 2024-06-04 07:58:47

steve_v wrote:

If you ask me, the relentless ill-informed tinfoil-hat noise on this board is the biggest problem with Devuan right now. It's leading the wider community to view the whole distro as a "fringe OS for conspiracy theorists", and people are laughing at us. Please stop already, it's embarrassing.

For example?

steve_v · 2024-06-04 09:38:18

I'll waste my time fighting the search system for references just as soon as I see the same for claims of one specific wireless driver making a system more "private" or teddybears breaking WPA encryption.

Examples of people conflating the freedom to choose your init with general anti-establishmentarianism and standing up to "them" (whomever that means this week) shouldn't be too hard to find around here though. Guess I could revisit it, when I'm done arguing about python 3.12 targets in gentoo that is.

quickfur · 2024-06-05 01:37:05

See, this is the crux of the problem: most people don't care about securing their WiFi router because that takes effort. And when something takes effort, the incentive is to do nothing except the default. Which will be insecure, because secure by default also means inconvenience, and manufacturers want maximum convenience in order to make more sales.

In the old days it took effort to hook up a device for online access. These days every toaster and its manufacturer's cool gadget actively want to be hooked up, with their corresponding apps automating most of the setup process. Why do people install these apps? Why do they agree to enter the WiFi password to connect the device online? Because part of the "cool features" of the IoT device they just splurged on depends on it. And nobody's gonna want to not use features they just ostensibly spent money on. So they will gladly enter Wi-Fi passwords for devices that they don't even know why it needs to have online access, because doing so lets them oh so cool control the gadget from their phones oh yeah!

Me, I'd never purchase anything that asks for online access that doesn't need to be. Nor input any password to some dumb device that I'm not confident doesn't have a ton of unpatched security holes from who knows how many years ago. But guess what's the percentage of the population that I represent? Probably some infinitesimal number. 😆 Nobody but geeks like us even know what the issue is, let alone care enough to do something about it. 99.9% of the world is insecure by default. Ignorance and apathy will be humanity's downfall, but who cares? 🤣

Anyway none of this really actually matters in this conversation. The only reason I brought this up was to point out the futility of this or that privacy concern while losing sight of the larger context of things. Security or privacy in isolation means nothing. You're just plugging one hole in a cheese grater. You need to consider the entire picture, instead of focusing on just one small point while so many other things defeat your purpose even before you began.

zapper · 2024-06-05 04:34:26

@golinux well yes, you can be tracked wherever you go online. This is correct. The only place this can be false on is what files exist on your computer. That's not the level of privacy I find ideal... its mediocre to be honest.

The only place going online doesn't reveal, is your files on your computer.

That's privacy hanging by a thread.

aluma · 2024-06-15 19:04:01

I discovered it recently, but judging by the requests, it happened a month ago - Firefox stopped supporting video calls on Facebook.
Although the FB website only talks about group calls, regular ones don’t work either.
A new round of “browser wars”.
https://www.facebook.com/help/287631408 … 1408243374

zapper · 2024-06-24 21:46:01

@aluma and I doubt its because firefox is not capable of running it.

Its probably just FB refusing to let it.

JWM-Kit · 2024-06-25 01:05:48

If it is simply FB rejecting it as @zapper has suggested then maybe try using a plugin to change the browsers useragent?

zapper · 2024-06-29 07:04:25

@JWM-Kit assuming you can trick FB into believing your using something else.

I am not entirely certain if that's possible. I am more than 75% sure FB is playing a game though by claiming firefox won't work.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#26 2024-06-04 05:31:16

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#27 2024-06-04 07:58:47

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#28 2024-06-04 09:38:18

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#29 2024-06-05 01:37:05

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#30 2024-06-05 04:34:26

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#31 2024-06-15 19:04:01

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#32 2024-06-24 21:46:01

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#33 2024-06-25 01:05:48

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

#34 2024-06-29 07:04:25

Re: Firefox is becoming too chrome like.

Board footer