Contra Chrome Comic, or "How Google's Browser Became a Threat to Privacy and Democracy"

Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 09:00
Last edited 29/04/2022 - 09:32

Just before Google launched its Chrome browser in 2008, they commissioned a little comic explaining what makes it different.

Thanks to Issue 1592 of The Sizzle (thanks Anthony for the super-generous 90 Day Subscription - still available!), I discovered a remix called Contra Chrome.

EDIT The site just got overwhelmed. You can still grab the PDF comic:

A good chunk isn't news to some, especially the privacy bits.

But there are some really super-interesting / surprising bits too:

  • No need to hit Return - what you type is instantly added to your profile (Page 4)
  • Incognito Mode… not so much. (Page 6)
  • Sync is the de facto rule despite technically an option (Page 13)
  • Chrome devs planned to start restricting ad blockers in 2019 (Page 14)
  • Shadow text (Page 16). Unlike public (visible to us) text, this captures "everything you type or click [however fleeting]", is hidden from our view, but made available to "surveillance capitalists".
  • "Depending on the country you live in, one identifier (muslim, LGBTQIA*, Democrat) can determine whether you get that job or credit card (Page 18)
  • Political players are buying the most private details of millions (Page 19)
  • Google's privacy and ad policies were likely "a massive enabler of voter manipulation", e.g., Trump and Brexit elections (Page 20)

Alarmist nonsense? Maybe. You can decide for yourself (annotations / references included). What do you think?

Jamie Zawinski, Mozilla.org founder commented:

Laying bare the inner workings of the controversial browser, [Leah] creates the ultimate guide to one of the world's most widely used surveillance tools.

To be clear I use Google heavily, much of my work depends on it, including Chrome. Outside work, I leave Chrome behind. This gives me even better reasons to do so.

Btw, can someone please enlighten me on why Jamie (the guy I quoted above) is so against Brave for being "all-in on cryptocurrency"? šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø

Internet Google Chrome

Comments

  • payton on 29/04/2022 - 09:09
    +4

    https://contrachrome.com/
    509
    "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded"

    rofl

    • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 09:14

      šŸ¤¦šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø

      • payton on 29/04/2022 - 09:31

        the big players/Google are already on to them and DDOS'ed the site :D

    • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 09:17
      +1

      Does OzB have a file sharing feature I can upload the PDF too?

      In the meantime, another forum suggested The Wayback Machine ā€” https://web.archive.org/web/20220401202242/https://contrachrā€¦

      • payton on 29/04/2022 - 09:33
        +1

        Looks like ozb file storage isnt accepting the 22mb pdf. People can always download it from the Wayback Machine link you provided tho

      • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 09:39
        +1

        Server overwhelmed. Updated OP to include two new ways to download the content:

        Thanks to moocher and payton for the timely suggestions šŸ‘šŸ¼

  • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 10:05
    +1

    Brave browser.

    • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 10:07

      Firefox and DDG browser should be on the shortlist too.

      Any idea why the former Mozilla guy (quoted) is so against Brave for being "all-in on crypto"?

      • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 10:12

        May be Mozilla is @wef, @imf supporters and want to devalue people's time.

      • DreadPirateRoberts on 29/04/2022 - 10:28
        +2

        Crypto isn't anonymous (bar maybe Monero), despite what everyone thinks. As soon as someone has your wallet address or a transaction of yours, they can see your entire transaction history. Also most of the crypto coins don't have utility (don't @ me rektrading) so a lot of them are scams / pump and dumps / honeypots / waste of energy.
        Full disclosure: I'm balls deep in crypto but don't really believe in the tech

    • DreadPirateRoberts on 29/04/2022 - 10:18

      Brave is based on Chromium (the rendering engine for Chrome). Still wouldn't use it over Firefox with some good plugins (uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentreleyes, Containers)

      • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 10:24

        Yeah, the comic used uBlock Origin as the example when it brought up how Chrome devs planned to restrict ad blockers.

    • whatwasherproblem on 29/04/2022 - 12:33

      le shill lion

  • whatwasherproblem on 29/04/2022 - 12:43

    Btw, can someone please enlighten me on why Jamie (the guy I quoted above) is so against Brave for being "all-in on cryptocurrency"?

    Probably no small amount of bad blood there, too. Mozilla's old co-founder was Brendan Eich, the same guy who co-founded Brave later when he was forced to step down as Mozilla's CEO for donating to charities half a decade prior that the rest of the woke Mozillarites took umbrage with. Sure the Brave BAT thing is a little suss on its own, but I imagine most of Jamie's issue with it is mostly driven by him having doubled-down on whatever kool-aid they've got them drinking over at Mozilla HQ.

    • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 12:52
      +1

      Wow. Jamie left Mozilla years ago I believe. Ah, found it ā€” 1999!

      But in 1999 I took my leave of that whole sick, navel-gazing mess we called the software industry. Now I'm in a more honest line of work: now I sell beer.

  • idonotknowwhy on 29/04/2022 - 14:03

    Chrome devs planned to start restricting ad blockers

    C'mon guys, let's keep firefox relevant enough to be supported by websites.

    https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

    • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 14:14

      Sure, wen they start adding WEB 3.0.

  • dazweeja on 29/04/2022 - 15:24

    Some of it I would say is alarmist nonsense

    One identifier can determine whether you get that job or credit card. But Google doesn't offer that data to employers or banks so I'm not sure what point is being made here.

    I've never heard of Google "selling your data" to anyone so saying that "political players are buying the most private details of millions" seems pretty misleading.

    Political players pay Google to target their ads at very, very specific demographics but it's Google that retains access to that data, not their customers.

    I've often heard the counter-argument that we can't be sure that Google isn't selling data but a) it's against their policies so would open them up to potential lawsuits if they were caught, and b) it defeats their entire business model of being the only entity that has access to this specific data which is what gives their service of selling targeted ads it's value.

    • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 15:38
      +2

      https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/07/google-selling-users-ā€¦
      Google selling usersā€™ personal data despite promise, federal court lawsuit claims
      Google says it never sells personal information
      By ETHAN BARON | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group
      PUBLISHED: May 7, 2021 at 10:07 a.m. | UPDATED: May 8, 2021 at 6:13 a.m.

      The suit points to ā€œa history of privacy violationsā€ at Google that have drawn government sanction. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission charged that the company ā€œused deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumersā€ when it launched a now-defunct social network. Google settled with the FTC.

      But two years later, after being charged by the FTC with violating the settlement by misrepresenting to users of Appleā€™s Safari browser that it would not place tracking ā€˜cookiesā€™ or serve targeted ads to them, the company paid a $22.5 million fine.

      In 2019, Google agreed to pay $170 million to settle claims by the FTC and New York Attorney General that YouTube illegally collected personal information from children without their parentsā€™ consent, the suit noted.

      Last year, a French high court upheld a 50 million Euro fine against Google over alleged failure to obtain usersā€™ consent for using their data for ad targeting, the suit said.

      https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2021cvā€¦

    • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 15:40
      +1

      https://swacash.com/2021/05/10/google-is-accused-of-resellinā€¦

      Google is accused of reselling personal data without reporting it
      May 10, 2021 by Amer Bekic

      However, the unique identifiers used by Google would make it possible, by cross-checking with other data, to know the identity of the owners of the information, even if the latter have taken precautions so as not to be tracked down.

      • dazweeja on 29/04/2022 - 17:49
        -1

        I see three "internet users" filed a suit which basically just repeated the claims by a US Senator regarding "unknown" companies selling bitstream data. What was the outcome of the case?

    • Member 0230 on 29/04/2022 - 16:29
      +1

      That section of the comic referring to one identifier and the ease of deanonymisation (Pages 16-19) is based on the work of Shoshana Zuboff who wrote The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Goodreads ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜† 4.07 stars | 8,239 ratings).

      She lays out (emphasis mine) that:

      The threat has shifted from a totalitarian Big Brother state to a ubiquitous digital architecture: a ā€œBig Otherā€ operating in the interests of surveillance capital. Here is the crucible of an unprecedented form of power marked by extreme concentrations of knowledge and free from democratic oversight.

      • dazweeja on 29/04/2022 - 16:49

        Is there any evidence that employers and banks are obtaining relevant information from Google, deanonymising it, and being so confident in their deanonymisation process that they are denying someone a job or a credit card based on it?

  • rektrading on 29/04/2022 - 15:56
    +4

    Google have a history of unlawful practices.

    Users that think that Google isn't using that data they collect in a manner that secretly violates state and fed laws deserve what they get.

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/ā€¦
    Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Childrenā€™s Privacy Law
    FTC, New York Attorney General allege YouTube channels collected kidsā€™ personal information without parental consent
    September 4, 2019

    Google LLC and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC will pay a record $170 million to settle allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General that the YouTube video sharing service illegally collected personal information from children without their parentsā€™ consent.

  • OzHunterNSW on 30/04/2022 - 15:15
    +3

    Our own govt allow this to occur in their "exchange of information" so it is Aust also creating a dossier upon all of us - even right now….

    • ozbjunkie on 01/05/2022 - 14:01
      +1

      It's got one.
      The whole idea that we needed covid check-ins to track people's movements was the most absurd thing about the past 2 years.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join