MozillaZine

Talk:Safe browsing

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 14:47, 31 May 2013
Rsx11m (Talk | contribs)
(reply to Tanstaafl's comments)
<-- Previous diff
Revision as of 15:06, 2 June 2013
Rsx11m (Talk | contribs)
(explanation of changes made)
Next diff -->
Line 6: Line 6:
I suggest we also very briefly mention SSL security errors as a topic near the beginning of the article and point them to http://kb.mozillazine.org/SSL_Security_Error. From a non-technical users viewpoint it is a safe browsing issue too. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I suggest we also very briefly mention SSL security errors as a topic near the beginning of the article and point them to http://kb.mozillazine.org/SSL_Security_Error. From a non-technical users viewpoint it is a safe browsing issue too. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
: Well, it depends how far we want to stretch the scope of this article. I kept it specific to the feature itself rather than trying to make it a catch-all discussion. Anyway, I can add a "See also" list and add a few links to related articles along with briefly defining the scope of this article at the beginning, this sure makes sense. --[[User:Rsx11m|Rsx11m]] 14:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC) : Well, it depends how far we want to stretch the scope of this article. I kept it specific to the feature itself rather than trying to make it a catch-all discussion. Anyway, I can add a "See also" list and add a few links to related articles along with briefly defining the scope of this article at the beginning, this sure makes sense. --[[User:Rsx11m|Rsx11m]] 14:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 +: I have expanded the Note to a full section, added a couple of links and referred to related articles in the "See also" section. I've also added a bullet item on my current understanding of individual URLs ''not'' being sent to the provider; if you have a source indicating otherwise, let's revisit that item. --[[User:Rsx11m|Rsx11m]] 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:06, 2 June 2013

Safe browsing uses a google service. Nowhere do we appear to warn a user that if they don't disable that feature Google tracks everywhere they browse, and may also track their searches even if they deliberately select a different search provider to avoid that.

I don't think this assumption is accurate. It is my understanding that the lists are downloaded from Google in specific intervals, without providing any information to the provider of the list which URLs have been visited. That comparison should be strictly local. The article states it in this way: "a list of domains which have been reported as being malicious is downloaded in regular intervals." Let me know if you have sources convincingly saying otherwise. Also, have a look at AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\xxx.default\safebrowsing and you'll find those downloads.

There are also several threads such as http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2711237&hilit=track where a user is concerned that Google can see what you're doing on the web if you don't log out after checking your mail on a browser. This article seems like the appropriate place to have a canned answer for those types of questions.

Ok, Google still could track though any activity related to their own services, specifically when visiting sites which are using Google Analytics or the "+1" button. This is basically covered in User tracking thus may not need to be specifically mentioned here.

I suggest we also very briefly mention SSL security errors as a topic near the beginning of the article and point them to http://kb.mozillazine.org/SSL_Security_Error. From a non-technical users viewpoint it is a safe browsing issue too. Tanstaafl 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends how far we want to stretch the scope of this article. I kept it specific to the feature itself rather than trying to make it a catch-all discussion. Anyway, I can add a "See also" list and add a few links to related articles along with briefly defining the scope of this article at the beginning, this sure makes sense. --Rsx11m 14:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the Note to a full section, added a couple of links and referred to related articles in the "See also" section. I've also added a bullet item on my current understanding of individual URLs not being sent to the provider; if you have a source indicating otherwise, let's revisit that item. --Rsx11m 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)