Waterfox search engine6/17/2023 ![]() As could be expected from Google, they lied: Google said that this part does not allow tracking. When the browser hits an URL whose truncated hash is in the local blacklist, there is a remote check contacting Google to download all the full blacklisted hashes that start with this truncated hash to check if the full URL hash the browser hit corresponds to one of them. The blacklist is not actual URLs but truncated URL hashes. ![]() But the thing is, Google being Google, the checks are not only local in case of a match. There are two parts, browsing protection and download protection.įor browsing protection Google is contacted twice an hour to download a blacklist (not great but at least Mozilla says they stopped sending a Google cookie with those requests). It’s up to you to decide with what you can see and judge - I try to do my best with Waterfox :-) Trust isn’t something I can direct you to, but it’s all a balancing act. But the lengths Startpage go to for privacy is impressive (I’ve known them for years, before we were related at all!). You can be involved in it without touching user data or privacy issues. But once again, without some sort of personal curation search is definitely worse off that’s why Google has such good results.īare in mind Waterfox and Startpage have the same parent company. ![]() I don’t know, I definitely think bar Google, they aren’t bad and some are even very good on that promise. These search engines are not as privacy centered as they claim I did start a more hard-core privacy focused version but it just ended up being essentially the same thing as Tor without the network, so seemed pointless when Tor was available. That’s how I’ve viewed it for a long time. There’s only so much you can have before you don’t get a very pleasant web experience - so it’s more curated here. ![]() Privacy is up there, but I always wanted it to be balanced in Waterfox. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |