Broadband Tech > Security > Security > Thoughts / Warnings On Bookmark Checking And Re-directs

Thoughts / Warnings On Bookmark Checking And Re-directs

I guess I don't understand why they put microsummaries in there at all.

I hope they enable a way to turn this off in firefox 2.x. Or else you just have to edit filters when you have no access to the net.
--
It doesn't interest me who you know, or how you came to be here.
I want to know if you will stand in the center of the fire with me and not shrink back.
- Oriah Mountain Dreamer

reply to BandHeight

reply to beck

This is just another reason to not use Fx 2.0. All you do if you have 2.0 is constantly fix it so that it not a terrible privacy invader. I would never check properties for a bookmark so I guess that weird microsummeries is no worry for me. I do have 2.0 on a virtual machine but I'm removing it. I am sick of constantly fixing 2.0 to work properly. I use 1.5 on my main machine and do not plan to upgrade even after April.

i tried doing a properties check on some bookmarks in both 1.5 and 2.0 to see what you were talking about. Sure enough, in some bookmarks in 2.0, clicking on properties gave me some dumb summary of the site. I don't need a summary of any bookmark. I already know what the bookmark is for...why would I ever click on properties to get a summary? That is plain crazy. So, I find the thing utterly stupid and worthless besides being an obvious privacy invader like so much else now is in 2.0. Fx 2.0 is a BAD browser. Never thought I would say that about Fx. 1.5 is fine...don't go above it. One of the bookmarks I tried in 2.0 that gave me the summary also popped up a cookie window! Inexcusable. And if you can't turn this off in about:config...well that is so bad as to make Fx 2.0 worthless SHIT.

I have Proxo so I am so glad I read this thread and then went and read your earlier one just now. I can use the filter but I have such a filthy taste in my mouth now about Fx 2.0 because this is not the first major privacy invader in 2.0, I intend to avoid 2.0 completely. Fx has been my browser of choice for over 5 years but now it is rapidly becoming as bad or worse than IE. It still has some things that I don't want to give up (extensions) so I will use 1.5 and I guess begin to prepare myself to one day not using Fx (unless 3.0 cares more about my privacy). Have you asked about this at Mozillazine?

Edited to ask if you know if there are any bugs filed on this?
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"

»www.msfirefox.com/

reply to BandHeight
Are you saying that Live Titles can not be turned off easily in Firefox as well as summeries?

Seems if you just change the bookmarks address to the Normal Url you will not have the summery or live marks.

As this is still in development there is no GUI for it but it is under development.

»blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2006/12···-titles/

»wiki.mozilla.org/Microsummaries

reply to Mele20

quote:

---

All you do if you have 2.0 is constantly fix it so that it not a terrible privacy invader.

---

quote:

---

One of the bookmarks I tried in 2.0 that gave me the summary also popped up a cookie window!

---

reply to beck
Microsummaries is just the next step in making bookmarks more versatile. Considering the complaints over the years about feature stagnation in IE this is a welcomed feature by some.

There is a whole thread at MozillaZine Forum discussing this feature.

Microsummaries
--
When the going gets tough the tough run away.

reply to BandHeight
FYI this filter will not kill the connection. It removes the X-Moz header only. I am using this filter.

[HTTP headers]
In = FALSE
Out = TRUE
Key = "X-Moz: Kill Microsummary Connections (Out)"
Match = "*"
Replace = "\k"
 

reply to hpguru
Fix away if you must but I do recall having been an IE user that not much was done by MS with it until competition woke them up

reply to BandHeight
I wonder if there is a potential DOS attack lurking here. I was reading that if the microsummary page is formatted as plaintext, FF2.0 does nothing and uses the text as-is, but if the page contains markup FF will convert it to text. I imagine a malicious webmaster could keep FF pretty busy if they wanted to.
--
Where's Jesus?
Dear Jesus!

reply to Grail Knight

reply to Grail Knight

I think the OP is referring to something else but not sure as to what he is referring to.

I have Live Bookmarks disabled the same as you and use Sage for my RSS Reader.

reply to Mele20
Nice pictures but I asked for a link.

You know that there are cookie handling extensions available that give you exactly what you want so your complaint is moot. Even your image issue is just that an issue you have that is easily fixed if you want.

Ever heard of CookieSafe? ImgLikeOpera?

Most people do not know how you have your cookie handling set up because most people are not concerned with cookies. A greater threat to your privacy is someone stealing your mail or having your credit card info stolen.

Did you look at the Microsummery links before you posted. Kind of early in development to judge something.

Seems Fx may be moving in a direction you can not handle.

You have choices though Mele. Opera, IE, either shell for IE (Maxthon/Avant/Slim Browser)or get a Mac and run Safari. I left a few browser out but you can look them up.
--
When the going gets tough the tough stop posting.

reply to hpguru
You should voice your concerns to Mozilla and see what they have to say. They are requesting testing of this feature as it is in beta still.

reply to Mele20

reply to Grail Knight
»www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/

I assumed you'd know the address. Speakeasy used to have the best speed tests (justin's applet but allowing for MS JVM usage if done from Speakeasy site instead of here) for years until they went to Flash. I assumed you had done their tests at some time. (When I went to post this the site told me the link has been posted 476 times).

There is nothing that handles Persistent Storage unless you have cookies set as I do. And MoFo doesn't plan on giving users a GUI for it or even telling them about it. That sucks.

I don't need cookie handling extensions and no I have never heard of CookieSafe or ImgLikeOPera whatever that is. I fixed everything in about:config but I should not have to do that as these things should not have been removed from the GUI so that you have to hunt about to have the privacy that was right there in early versions of Fx. MoFo should certainly tell users about Persistent Storage and let them decide whether they want to allow it or not and what exactly they want allowed from sites. Sort of like how Flash does it.

Yes, I read the other thread about Microsummery. I mentioned that in my first post in this thread and said I would use one of the Proxo filters given there. I also read the link you gave to the four page thread at Mozillazine and read the bugzilla report, read the pages at »wiki.mozilla.org/Microsummaries/Using

According to the latter:

"When you bookmark a page that has a microsummary, the Name field in the Add Bookmark dialog window will turn into a menu:

If the Name field isn't a menu, no microsummaries are available for the page. Note that even if the field is a menu, you can always choose to just display the regular name (or any name of your choosing) by selecting that from the menu."

That Speakeasy bookmark has no Name field menu so why is it displaying a microsummary? I don't use live bookmarks so if I were to look at properties for a bookmark it certainly should not have any microsummery and should not contact the site. As I said earlier, I don't have any reason to look at a bookmark's properties so it is sort of moot as long I don't do that or incorporate one of the Proxo filters. But that is not really the point. It is the principle involved that I thought I had Live Bookmarks turned off ... it's a really ugh! feature IMO. Yet, turns out, you apparently can't completely turn it off...because there it is, invading your privacy with calling home, if you open properties on a bookmark. This, along with Persistent Storage and other things indicate that Fx is now focused not on the user and what is good for the user (privacy for one thing) but has become focused on commercialism and how much money it can generate for the developers. Web site owners are salivating at the idea of microsummeries. Ugh. Very invasive of privacy and it is this decision by MoFo to disrespect users privacy that offends and worries me. If some users don't care about their privacy and want microsummeries fine but these privacy invasion things should not be shoved down all Fx users throats. There should be choices. All I can say is THANK GOD for PROXO!
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"

»www.msfirefox.com/