Technology

Firefox now has Firefox Sync which allows seamless switching between devices and the performance of Firefox is generally on par with Chrome, sometimes faster. It also has a pretty dang big library of extensions.

Modern Firefox is more “modern” looking than Chrome in my opinion. Also, iirc each tab is now its own thread.

I was there for the single process Firefox when everyone else went multiprocess. It was then that I also switched away from FF, too.

I’m back on it now though (for past 9 months or so, since I heard about Google’s intention with Chrome.)

Firefox and Safari are my daily drivers, and it’s pretty chill. Edge is my backup if I must.

And uBlock Origin. There's some other decent privacy addons too like Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes and Chameleon.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/search-engines/

It's easy for us as we are tech literate, but I mostly think of the average person that "doesn't care about privacy and personal data". We're also not Google's main demographic. When most websites use this kind of shit, it will be extremely hard for everyone to get away from it.

According to this comment, the changes Google is making will tell websites if you're in a vm or not.

Comment text if there are linking problems:

The idea is that it would be similar to hardware attestation in Android. In fact, that's where Google got the idea from.

Basically, this is the way it works:

• You download a web browser or another program (possibly even one baked into the OS, e.g. working alongside/relying on the TPM stuff from the BIOS). This is the "attester". Attesters have a private key that they sign things with. This private key is baked into the binary of the attester (so you can't patch the binary).

• A web page sends some data to the attester. Every request the web page sends will vary slightly, so an attestation can only be used for one request - you cannot intercept a "good" attestation and reuse it elsewhere. The ways attesters can respond may vary so you can't just extract the encryption key and sign your own stuff - it wouldn't work when you get a different request.

• The attester takes that data and verifies that the device is running stuff that corresponds to the specs published by the attester - "this browser, this OS, not a VM, not Wine, is not running this program, no ad blocker, subject to these rate limits," etc.

• If it meets the requirements, the attester uses their private key to sign. (Remember that you can't patch out the requirements check without changing the private key and thus invalidating everything.)

• The signed data is sent back to the web page, alongside as much information as the attester wants to provide. This information will match the signature, and can be verified using a public key.

• The web page looks at the data and decides whether to trust the verdict or not. If something looks sketchy, the web page has the right to refuse to send any further data.

They also say they want to err towards having fewer checks, rather than many ("low entropy"). There are concerns about this being used for fingerprinting/tracking, and high entropy would allow for that. (Note that this does explicitly contradict the point the authors made earlier, that "Including more information in the verdict will cover a wider range of use cases without locking out older devices.")

That said - we all know where this will go. If Edge is made an attester, it will not be low entropy. Low entropy makes it harder to track, which benefits Google as they have their own ways of tracking users due to a near-monopoly over the web. Google doesn't want to give rivals a good way to compete with user tracking, which is why they're pushing "low-entropy" under the guise of privacy. Microsoft is incentivized to go high-entropy as it gives a better fingerprint. If the attestation server is built into Windows, we have the same thing.