Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday July 13 2015, @12:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-you-share-the-more-you-care dept.

Julien Voisin blogs:

Today, I updated my Firefox, and had a new icon on my toolbar: pocket. I took at quick look at the ToS and privacy policy; here is my tl;dr:

Read it Later, Inc. is collecting a lot of intimate information and is tracking you.

When you share something through Pocket with a friend, the emails contains spying material using malware-like techniques to track your friends.

They are sharing those information with trusted third parties (Could be anyone they are doing business with.).

The policy might change, and it's your responsibility to check Pocket's website to see if it has.

[...] The Pocket implementation is not an extension (while it was available as an extension), it's implemented in Firefox. You can not remove it, only disable it, by going in about:config, since this option is not available in the preferences menu.

What the hell is pocket? on Mozilla's site:

The Pocket for Firefox button lets you save web pages and videos to Pocket in just one click. Pocket strips away clutter and saves the page in a clean, distraction-free view and lets you access them on the go through the Pocket app. All you need is a free account, an Internet connection and the Pocket button.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Monday July 13 2015, @07:25PM

    by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Monday July 13 2015, @07:25PM (#208610) Journal

    Pale Moon is the alternative - it was forked to avoid the pointless UI changes that started a couple of years ago; most extensions are still compatible, and the devs are pretty much committed to not making changes that are "crap" (like the recent directive from Mozilla management to remove FTP functionality from the Firefox "platform" [mozilla.org] (note that this may not remove FTP functionality from Firefox entirely - but it will end up being implemented as a JavaScript thing like PDF-inside-Firefox is today)).

    --
    Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by TheMessageNotTheMessenger on Monday July 13 2015, @08:03PM

    by TheMessageNotTheMessenger (5664) on Monday July 13 2015, @08:03PM (#208624)

    FTP is terribly insecure and you shouldn't be using it. I had no idea FF still supported it.

    How up-to-date is Pale Moon? Since it's a fork and not just a custom build, how well does it get tested and what about security updates?

    --
    Hello! :D
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @08:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @08:29PM (#208635)

      This is what the main dev has to say:

      I actually feel a little silly having to write this FAQ entry, because Pale Moon is actively developed and as such kept up-to-date. But hey, it's frequently asked!

      Is Pale Moon up-to-date?

      Yes, it certainly is.
      Pale Moon is actively developed. The confusion is apparently present because Pale Moon has a lower major version number than its sibling Firefox.
      A few points:

              Security: Pale Moon is kept updated with the latest applicable security patches that make it into the Mozilla (Firefox/seamonkey/thunderbird/etc.) source code.
              Version numbers: Pale Moon's version number is what it is because of the version of Firefox it is most compatible with. e.g.: Pale Moon 24.6 is a far cry from Firefox 24.0 in terms of code, and should not be compared with it. It just means that the front-end code is most compatible with Firefox 24 from an add-on point of view.
              Feature updates: Pale Moon adopts a number of features from later Firefox versions that are considered essential and desired for Pale Moon
              Divergence: Pale Moon increasingly diverts from what Mozilla is doing to Firefox, and going in its own direction. Versioning of Pale Moon can therefore seem a little confusing since it originally was a fairly close reflection of Firefox with the same version, but it no longer is (and hasn't been for a while).

      https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5075 [palemoon.org]

      Of course those are just words. What evidence are you looking for?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by fnj on Monday July 13 2015, @09:01PM

      by fnj (1654) on Monday July 13 2015, @09:01PM (#208649)

      FTP is terribly insecure and you shouldn't be using it.

      Do you have any idea whatsoever what you're talking about? Using anonymous FTP to download files is "insecure" how? It's the de facto file transfer protocol of the internet. It is very efficient. Granted browser client implementations are pretty much all shitty. For anything serious, wget is much preferred, but for simple stuff it's been taken for granted forever that you can browse and casually download from FTP servers in a browser.

      If you had said telnet was complete garbage for a long time now, that would be different. With telnet's clear text password transfer, it's not conceivable that there is any safe use for it. Anonymous FTP is not like that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @01:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @01:38AM (#208714)

        FTP's insecure because it's unencrypted?

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:21AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:21AM (#208720) Homepage

          Who cares??! When I use FTP I am downloading some file, not exchanging information with my bank.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @05:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @05:47AM (#208760)

            Even the most mundane communications should be encrypted, to provide cover for those who truly need it.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:12AM (#208778)

          So is HTTP.

          Which is STILL regarded by Firefox as more secure than HTTPS with self-signed certificates (when they are closer to being equal).

          • (Score: 1) by mvdwege on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:58AM

            by mvdwege (3388) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:58AM (#209281)

            That's because an unverified cert is more insecure than a totally unauthenticated, unencrypted connection that announces to the user that it is in fact insecure. An unverified cert announces to the user that it is secure, while not being secure at all.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:27AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:27AM (#208721) Homepage

        Hey, browser devs, want a fast track to my bit bucket? Keep removing useful features and replacing them with useless eye candy.

        Geez. I use FTP in the browser all the bloody time. Just today I used it to wander around some linux repository looking for the ISO that I wanted. And as I said to the other bloke, who cares if FTP is secure or not? We're using it to view and download random shit, not to communicate with our banks. FTP has about as much need to be secure as a textfile does.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Monday July 13 2015, @10:43PM

      by Francis (5544) on Monday July 13 2015, @10:43PM (#208675)

      How is it any less secure than www? If you need security, there's sft, scp and various other methods.