Is there a way to de-botnet Chrome without using Iridium or another fork?
I've been using Iridium but extensions like HTTPS Everywhere don't work because of an "outdated version of chrome" warning
>>54722289
There's always chromium, which is at least a little better than just using chrome
>>54722576
still doesn't accept all extension though
Using FF right now but chrome is just faster, and I have the system resources to use it
Just don't want to botnet
>>54722289
I would think that connecting through a local proxy, such as Proxomitron, combined with blocking bad sites in your hostfile, would make browsing safer and more private.
>Caring what Google learns about you from a browser when your ISP sells them everything anyway
>>54722289
why do you care? google tracks billions of people, you shouldn't worry unless you're a kidfucker or isis member
>literally all of those things can be turned off in the settings
>>54722608
Remember that Google put a patch into Chromium (not Chrome, Chromium) that downloaded a blob from Google that turned on the microphone and sent what it heard back to Google. They said this was to enable voice commands.
If you don't want the botnet, there's no way to use Chromium, Chrome, or any other Google software.
>>54723415
Until Google starts, say, giving location information to your insurance company, who determines that you would have had to travel above the speed limit to get from where you were at noon to where you were an hour later, and raises your rates as a result. Or until they decide to do what Facebook is rumored to have dipped its toe into, using its data on people to try and influence how they vote. Or until you come under suspicion from the authorities for doing things that are perfectly legal, but are either frowned upon or are also done by more unsavory types - enjoy being on an NSA watchlist because Google told them you get an email newsletter with pro-Palestinian content.
Anyone who has any desire to live in a world with anything at all worthy of being called freedom has much to fear from the botnet, not just pedos and terrorists.
>>54723497
bullshit
>>54723719
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/17/debian_chromium_hubbub/
>"After upgrading chromium to 43, I noticed that when it is running and immediately after the machine is on-line it silently starts downloading 'Chrome Hotword Shared Module' extension, which contains a binary without source code," Yoshino wrote. "There seems no opt-out config."
>Even worse for some users was the nature of the proprietary code that Chromium downloaded. It was reportedly a library that supported Google's "OK Google" voice recognition feature, which some security researchers have pointed out is a potential open door for invasion of privacy.
The last words link to this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/11/google_chrome_voice_search/
>The realisation that anything spoken near your Smart TV might be recorded and transmitted to a third party is bad enough, but how about the possibility of "always-listening voice search" getting built into Google's Chrome browser?
>The "always-listening" feature is available via Google Voice Search Hotword (beta) extension.
>We’re indebted to Sean Sullivan, a security advisor at F-Secure, for going through the fine print and finding an interesting snippet explaining that “Chrome will listen for you to say 'OK Google' and then send the sound of the next thing you say plus a few seconds before, to Google.”
>>54723464
Sadly that's asking too much of your average /g/ user
>>54722608
>still doesn't accept all extension though
[citation needed]
Chromium is Chrome's *upstream*, you realize it, don't you.
>>54723808
Sure if you leave out half the story it makes for some nice FUD. Take a look at the original debian and chromium tickets:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=491435
tl;dr:
>that blob was never executed
>you can verify this because the code that would have had to execute it is open source
>also, the interpreter needed to run the blob isn't even compiled at least in the debian chromium build
>it is completely credible that this incident was unintentional, except you think chromium devs would be so fucking stupid to "attack" with a binary that no system executes per default and many systems cannot execute at all.
>>54723464
Yeah, "turned off". Hehe.
