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

reply to Mele20

Re: Thoughts / Warnings On Bookmark Checking And Re-directs

»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/

What are you talking about? Properties of the cookie? What does that have to do with Microsummery displaying on Properties check for that bookmark? And the fact that if microsummery displays there is linking back to the site so the site knows that I have their url in bookmarks and that I just examined the properties of their bookmark and they assumed I was coming to their site (not just idly examining the properties) so they "nicely" popped up a cookie prompt on my screen since I have cookies set to prompt unless I have already blocked the site. That is invasion of my privacy. I should be able to check the properties of a bookmark without the website being notified. I also should not even have a microsummary in there for that site as according to MoFo that is not possible. Plus, I thought I had declined Live Bookmarks so why do I have them for some sites on properties check? That is my point and the point of the OP. I don't know what you are talking about but it is not what I or the OP are talking about.

This only happens of Fx 2.0. 1.5 doesn't have microsummary for that bookmark if I check the properties of the bookmark.

EDIT: I see I am confusing Live Bookmarks with Live Titles. Thanks BandHeight for the clarification.
--
"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 Grail Knight

Here's an analogy (in the form of a question) for those who believe it is a good idea (or at least okay) to combine dynamic-content updating (which requires accessing the bookmarked website) with the Bookmark Properties dialog:

Would it be okay to select Properties from a file manager's right-click context menu (e.g., in Windows Explorer) and have the file executed while accessing the dialog box? Or perhaps notify the copyright holder that you have the file on your machine and that you just queried its properties?

While I acknowledge the analogy may be extreme, the properties dialog in ANY context should be for informational purposes only. It should not be used to execute files or initiate network connections.

Perhaps my next car will have the feature of simultaneously auto-pressing the accelerator while I'm engaging the brake.

I will combine all replies neatly in one post to save space.

Live Bookmarks is nothing more then RSS feeds. By turning it off in the options by selecting "No Application Selected" you eliminate that feature unless you are using another method for RSS Feeds (Sage is what I use)

Live Titles are similar but use the bookmark to display updated information on bookmarks label called Microsummaries. updated news, information etc... Sports scores

------------------
Updating information in the bookmarks while checking the properties of it is a great feature IMO. There is potential for redirects but no greater then clicking a link and being redirected to another site or using a program like AMDeadLinks which you had mentioned.

If Mozilla comes up with a "Off" button then users that are worried about this feature can stop the feature from pulling data from a site.

The information is stored within the Profile. Saying this is some sort of Privacy risk is like saying storing the cookies.txt and hostperm.1 files residing in the Profile are equally as bad. The information needs to be stored somewhere and the Profile is a better place then any.

------------------------------

quote:

---

simply checking the properties of bookmarks may leave data on a PC that leads to false forensic conclusions about how / why certain sites were accessed. This was one of my concerns when I brought it up originally, and the case of the teacher being convicted of a crime by an incompetent prosecution / jury only adds to the concern.

---

reply to Mele20

quote:

---

should be able to check the properties of a bookmark without the website being notified.

---

quote:

---

I also should not even have a microsummary in there for that site as according to MoFo that is not possible.

---

reply to Grail Knight
According to Alex Eckleberry (whom I trust), all teachers at that school were told that they could NEVER, under any circumstances turn off a school computer. The teacher did tell other teachers and finally school administrators. Remember, this was a substitute teacher who probably did not feel comfortable in violating school rules even in such a situation. I also suggest that you read the Norwich Times on this issue. The reporter there has stated that he is solidly behind the teacher and that he is privy to much legal information that cannot be made public at this time and that she is definitely not guilty.

As for Live Titles, I have no objection to Fx offering this to users. I am sure many users will love it. What I do take issue with is the fact the MoFo has implemented this feature and refused to provide an OFF button for those of use who feel strongly against the feature. At the very least, MoFo could have provided a way in about:config to turn it off NOW and then later provided a GUI. They chose, instead, to force this on all users and that action is what I am upset about. This not the sort of action MoFo would have taken even just a couple of years ago. I don't like the extremely commercial direction that Fx is taking, wherein, the users wishes are being ignored in favor of website owners. Sounds exactly like something Microsoft would do. Most of us early adopters of Firefox believed this sort of thing would not happen with it.

It is not just the setting of a cookie that I would not know about (unless I had Fx set to ask everytime) when checking the properties of a bookmark that bothers me. Firstly, I don't want any microsummary in the bookmark properties. That should not be there. I didn't ask for it and I don't want that feature. Secondly, if Fx was set to accept all cookies you make it sound like looking at the properties would simply cause a cookie to be accepted from Speakeasy. No, it would cause the browser to go WITHOUT USER PERMISSION to the Speakeasy site and it would cause the Speakeasy server to be able to record the fact that I have the Speakeasy site in my bookmarks. The latter is a clear invasion of my privacy as that is done without my consent.The former is an invasion of my control over my computer and my browser and also violates my privacy. If I wanted to go to the Speakeasy site I would click directly on the bookmark. If I wanted to examine the properties of that bookmark that means I wanted to do just that. I did not want to go to the site, I did not want the site setting a cookie, and I did not want the site recording that I have their address in my bookmarks.
--
"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 Grail Knight

quote:

---

First of all, it is news to me that members of dslr are forbidden to complain about features in browsers, security applications, etc. in these forums.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

What a bunch of morons.

Coming from an anon aol user that means a lot.

reply to Grail Knight
Any feature that violates a person's privacy cannot be constructive. So, why are you pretending it is? I guess it is "constructive" to you because you don't value privacy...correct? I have stated several times, both here and at Mozillazine, that I am not against the feature PER SE. What upsets me is that this "feature" is being ramrodded down everyone's throats and does not have a way to turn it off. That is a indication of the road MoFo has decided to go down and it is a road that is like the one Microsoft took long ago where the user is sneered at and privacy is burned on the alter of Big Business, Big Brother, etc.

You know Fx is not just about you but you seem to think it is.

The proof of MoFo's focus is in the pudding if you would just open your eyes.

You don't even understand this issue or microsummaries from the comments you have made and yet you not only embrace a concept you don't seem to understand but you also put down those who do understand it and are concerned.

I believe you said : "Sounds like once again you are complaining to the wrong people.

Contact Mozilla and express your concern Mele."

That sure sounds like you don't believe anyone should post a complaint about any application here at dslreports but should post only to the vendor. Of course, you only make that comment to me ad nauseum. I don't see you making such a comment to others so evidently it is fine for others to post concerns here but not for me to do so...hmmmm......

Why don't you address the issues for a change?
--
"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/

You do a lot of guessing for me Mele.

This is not the first time. hmmmm

Provide me solid proof about Mozillas intentions. Your accusing them of putting money before security and privacy. Surely you have something to back that up other then telling me it is right there for me to see.

I see a quality browser that has features I like. If they make money along the way that is called a business. Judging from users comments at MozillaZine they like them also.

No Mele it is not all about me. Seems though you are familair with the term Has someone said that to you before bsides me?

Go play your games Somewhere else I am not biting tonight.

I have read up on the features today and I had them mixed up at first. Whoops, end of the world moment there.

So you do not make mistakes now do you?

How is your web bug identification coming?

quote:

---

Why don't you address the issues for a change?

---