When It Comes to Privacy, Safari Is Only the Fourth-Best Browser (yahoo.com) 36
Apple's elaborate new ad campaign promises that Safari is "a browser that protects your privacy." And the Washington Post says Apple "deserves credit for making many privacy protections automatic with Safari..."
"But Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said Safari is no better than the fourth-best web browser for your privacy." "If browser privacy were a sport at the Olympics, Apple isn't getting on the medal stand," Cahn said. (Apple did not comment about this.)
Safari stops third-party cookies anywhere you go on the web. So do Mozilla's Firefox and the Brave browser... Chrome allows third-party cookies in most cases unless you turn them off... Even without cookies, a website can pull information like the resolution of your computer screen, the fonts you have installed, add-on software you use and other technical details that in aggregate can help identify your device and what you're doing on it. The measures, typically called "fingerprinting," are privacy-eroding tracking by another name. Nick Doty with the Center for Democracy & Technology said there's generally not much you can do about fingerprinting. Usually you don't know you're being tracked that way. Apple says it defends against common fingerprinting techniques but Cahn said Firefox, Brave and the Tor Browser all are better at protecting you from digital surveillance. That's why he said Safari is no better than the fourth-best browser for privacy.
Safari's does offer extra privacy protections in its "private" mode, the article points out. "When you use this option, Apple says it does more to block use of 'advanced' fingerprinting techniques. It also steps up defenses against tracking that adds bits of identifying information to the web links you click."
The article concludes that Safari users can "feel reasonably good about the privacy (and security) protections, but you can probably do better — either by tweaking your Apple settings or using a web browser that's even more private than Safari."
"But Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said Safari is no better than the fourth-best web browser for your privacy." "If browser privacy were a sport at the Olympics, Apple isn't getting on the medal stand," Cahn said. (Apple did not comment about this.)
Safari stops third-party cookies anywhere you go on the web. So do Mozilla's Firefox and the Brave browser... Chrome allows third-party cookies in most cases unless you turn them off... Even without cookies, a website can pull information like the resolution of your computer screen, the fonts you have installed, add-on software you use and other technical details that in aggregate can help identify your device and what you're doing on it. The measures, typically called "fingerprinting," are privacy-eroding tracking by another name. Nick Doty with the Center for Democracy & Technology said there's generally not much you can do about fingerprinting. Usually you don't know you're being tracked that way. Apple says it defends against common fingerprinting techniques but Cahn said Firefox, Brave and the Tor Browser all are better at protecting you from digital surveillance. That's why he said Safari is no better than the fourth-best browser for privacy.
Safari's does offer extra privacy protections in its "private" mode, the article points out. "When you use this option, Apple says it does more to block use of 'advanced' fingerprinting techniques. It also steps up defenses against tracking that adds bits of identifying information to the web links you click."
The article concludes that Safari users can "feel reasonably good about the privacy (and security) protections, but you can probably do better — either by tweaking your Apple settings or using a web browser that's even more private than Safari."
wait a sec ... (Score:1)
you're using it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
ffs, give us some privacy!
Clickbait. (Score:2)
Don't use Safari but this is 100% clickbait.
This is just about preventing fingerprinting and completely skips the fact that Safari doesn't (afaik) send any information upstream to Apple, unlike browsers like say Firefox has telemetry enabled _by default_.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and it doesn't even link to any source of criticism on privacy. Complete garbage, even by /. standards. How do these "editors" have a job?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use Safari but this is 100% clickbait.
This is just about preventing fingerprinting and completely skips the fact that Safari doesn't (afaik) send any information upstream to Apple, unlike browsers like say Firefox has telemetry enabled _by default_.
Firefox also measures ad performance with a new method that is enabled by default. They didn't ask the users, because the value would be enormous for the advertisers. [adguard.com]
Re:Clickbait. (Score:5, Informative)
>"Firefox also measures ad performance with a new method that is enabled by default."
Yeah, they probably should of had that default to the same permission used for telemetry (this new one arrived recently in version 128). But:
1) It is not hidden and it is correctly placed/categorized
2) It is clearly described, including a link for more info
3) It is one click to turn it off. Privacy -> Website Advertising Preferences
4) Mozilla is actively trying to protect privacy (with PPA) while also not destroying the ad revenue that drives most sites:
https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org]
"Firefox encrypts the report and anonymously submits it using the Distributed Aggregation Protocol (DAP) to an âoeaggregation serviceâ.
"PPA does not involve sending information about your browsing activities to anyone. This includes Mozilla and our DAP partner"
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect part of it is that they also don't want to drive site owners into just trying to block Firefox at some point.
Safari has their private click measurement system on by default, Firefox likely can't afford to be the odd one out with their defaults.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy, plus much more (Score:5, Informative)
>"Cahn said Firefox, Brave and the Tor Browser all are better at protecting you from digital surveillance"
Of the major browsers, only Firefox (or its few derivatives, Tor Browser being one of them) is based on community-driven/participation FOSS code; every other major browser (including Brave) is based on Chromium, with Google firmly in control of that underpinning. And Safari is single-platform on top of being Apple-controlled. If you want/need a multi-platform browser with the most privacy options, most user-configurations, and [arguably] the best security (plus you don't want to give power/eyes to Google), then Firefox (or its few derivatives) is the only remaining choice. And it is not a bad choice- on the desktop it is, overall, as fast and efficient as anything else, and packed with features. On Android, it could use some improvement, but is getting better.
As another noted, Firefox might have telemetry on by default, but at least it is not going to Google/Apple/Microsoft, and easy to turn off (and certainly not hidden) under "Privacy" -> "Firefox Data Collection and Use", and it stays off.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
>"Cahn said Firefox, Brave and the Tor Browser all are better at protecting you from digital surveillance"
Of the major browsers, only Firefox (or its few derivatives, Tor Browser being one of them) is based on community-driven/participation FOSS code; every other major browser (including Brave) is based on Chromium, with Google firmly in control of that underpinning. And Safari is single-platform on top of being Apple-controlled. If you want/need a multi-platform browser with the most privacy options, most user-configurations, and [arguably] the best security (plus you don't want to give power/eyes to Google), then Firefox (or its few derivatives) is the only remaining choice. And it is not a bad choice- on the desktop it is, overall, as fast and efficient as anything else, and packed with features. On Android, it could use some improvement, but is getting better.
As another noted, Firefox might have telemetry on by default, but at least it is not going to Google/Apple/Microsoft, and easy to turn off (and certainly not hidden) under "Privacy" -> "Firefox Data Collection and Use", and it stays off.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... [mozilla.org]
Agree 100%, and on top of that, adblocking on FF will become more effective that that of chrome once chromium deprecates manifest v2, and still is miles ahead of what Safari has ever been. (This is written from my macbook air)
Add to that: If you opt for FireFox ESR, you will not get weird changes in the UI or workflow for a full year.
Re: Privacy, plus much more (Score:2)
Re: Privacy, plus much more (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Safari is based on WebKit, which is under a BSD license."
That is true. I didn't say it wasn't FOSS. Chromium is also FOSS, but the *project* is completely controlled by Google. This means that really only Google can add/change the code... Google, who is an ad-driven and massive data-collection company, has a serious conflict of interest in this space. Plus we have already seen them flex their muscles trying to force "standards" on what is the web (and all browsers). And when they control the engine used in every major browser, except Firefox (and its derivatives) and Safari, they hold a TREMENDOUS amount of power over the internet/web. It is very dangerous to have so much mindshare moving to a monoculture- not just for control, but also security, privacy, and innovation.
I vehemently support Firefox due to the above. I don't want to see Firefox (and its derivatives) die... especially tragic because it is a great browser. I wouldn't want to see Firefox being the only browser out there, either. I would really like to see at least three major FOSS, multiplatform browser bases in widespread use, not just two.
In the meantime, we should support the last remaining true browser freedom we have left- and that means installing and using Firefox, spreading the word about it, voicing our displeasure (and taking our dollars away from) any website or product that tries to go the "IE Only" way (by coding to a browser like Chrom* and not to open standards). Using something like Edge, Opera, or Brave isn't going help. Using Safari might, but it has very little impact, since it is not multiplatform. Even on Apple desktops/laptops, a huge number of those users are installing Chrom*.
Firefox fixed the last web disaster, which was Internet Explorer. It can play an important part in preventing the next disaster, if we let it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is FF still considered a major browser? On desktop, it's probably less than 7%. On all platforms, I'd guess it's not even 1-2%. Brave is probably below 1% on desktop, i.e. not major at all. And I think Tor is even more esoteric than Brave.
Ultimately, they're all better choices than Chrome or Edge.
iCloud private relay is unmatched (Score:2)
The ultimate finger print is your IP, nothing really matches iCloud private relay, VPN's don't rotate your IP on the fly for instance. but that costs quite a bit of money to run, only an ecosystem can afford to run that for free for their customers.
I wish there was an open source ecosystem competitor which made its money from sales from the bundled software store and hardware certification and could afford to offer something similar to iCloud private relay to customers on certified hardware, alas there is n
Re: (Score:2)
There has been several comments on this website saying the opposite. VPNs are useless because nobody uses IP as the main source of tracking. They use a combination of data points. How many browsers have I seen with this IP, how many browsers have those HTTP_ACCEPT headers, that locale, timezone, system fonts, canvas, etc. IPs is the least reliable because it eventually changes, while the language of the browser and the timezone, for example, are usually fixed. Google/Meta have more precise ways of tracking
Re: (Score:2)
Uhuh, sure ... the actually, if temporarily, unique identifier isn't all that important. Once you have a definite identification (through a login on a participating website), IP is the easiest thing to track. No need to expose your browser fingerprint exploits, which like all exploits are devalued through use, the more you use them the faster they get fixed.
Any way. How many Apple users are on identical OS/hardware/updates/settings, also font fingerprinting doesn't work on Safari AFAIK (ie. websites can't u
I moved to Brave as 2nd browser and for YouTube (Score:2)
Vivaldi was doing a good job of blocking their ads until a few weeks ago. Now they are annoying and intrusive again. Firefox has gone off the rails with their last scheme. Hence I am not tryin Brave as reserve browser and for YouTube. And the ads have vanished again. Good.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Firefox has gone off the rails with their last scheme"
Have no idea what you mean by "scheme". Linux + Ublock Origin shows no ads in YouTube for me, and never has. Nor have I had any delays or problems. But I am also NOT logged into YouTube, so that might be a factor. Last thing on Earth I would want is making it easier for Google to track what videos I am watching.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant "Linux + Firefox + Ublock Origin"
zed zed tawp (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why I am stopping to use Firefox as my reserve browser is their upcoming "privacy preserving" ad stuff. I have viewed YouTube with vivaldi up to now.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The reason why I am stopping to use Firefox as my reserve browser is their upcoming "privacy preserving" ad stuff."
OK, well, you can turn that off. It is just one click. Even with it on, it doesn't divulge any personally-identifying things to ad sites, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, probably. But the law says (in the form of the GDPR) that it must be default-off. No telling what they are preparing to sneak in there as well and hence I am out.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why I am stopping to use Firefox as my reserve browser is their upcoming "privacy preserving" ad stuff.
The way I see it is that Firefox needs revenue to survive. If Mozilla can give advertisers the information they need while not selling my personal information, and that results in advertising revenue for Mozilla, that's as good as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
In actual reality, Mozilla is burning cash like crazy for mediocre results. Instead of getting rid of their incompetent leadership, they are now trying to make more money.
Don't forget Safari only runs on Apple device (Score:2)
So for a user that is already using device+OS from Apple, what data Safari could collect that Apple could not have already collected on the device or OS level?
An Apple user choosing another browser for "privacy" is just being stupid, it will be just inviting one more party to spy on you, while Apple is already collecting whatever they wanted from the device and OS.
The sane choice for Apple users, from a privacy-preserving perspective, is to stick to Apple software so at least your data only goes to one part
A Private Browser Is One You Configure (Score:3)
Depends on what you call private (Score:2)
If it is more private than other default OS browse (Score:2)