Warning: Google Chrome Apparently *Removing* Key Privacy Feature

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by linuxforall, Oct 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. linuxforall

    linuxforall Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,136
    http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000763.html

    It seems that the new Chrome beta (7.0.517.24) -- being automatically pushed out now -- has (with no warning whatsoever) removed what I consider to be a key functionality, the cookie control setting that allows you to be queried for a decision whenever new cookies are being offered, and permits you to determine how cookies from related site will be handled in the future.
     
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I've been using Chrome stable for a new months and haven't come across this feature. If it does exist in Chrome stable, where is it?

    In edit:
    I found it. Though I don't use it, I can't see what purpose will be served by removing it except to rile the privacy lobby.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  3. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Well, I know why I'm sticking to Firefox. Besides: The speed advantage of Chrome - for many users the striking argument - is only negligible compared to the recent progress made in FF4.
     
  4. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I guess that's why I stick with Chromium, instead. Running just damn fine for near two years.

    But, I can't understand this attitude from Google. What would be the reason for such?
     
  5. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Privacy concerns related to cookies are heavily overrated. Blocking third-party cookies would be your way to go.
    These days trackers rely more on flash storage than anything else, did you configure that?

    web-storage.png
     
  6. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    The article author mentions he saw the feature disapear from the developer version some weeks ago and took no notice of it. Are you saying the version of Chromium you're using is unaffected by this?
     
  7. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Yes, at least for what I can tell. Last time I updated it was yesterday; version number 7.0.541.0.

    Edit: OK. It seems I know what the author is mentioning. I made confusion with being possible to block third-party cookies etc from within the UI.

    What's in discussion is the browser alerting the user, if defined that way, for cookies when entering a web site.

    No, it seems there isn't anything there anymore. I never noticed, because I just block cookies for all, then allow for websites I want.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  8. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I have Adobe Flash but I do not have that Adobe Flash Settings Manager. Where did you get it?
     
  9. diginsight

    diginsight Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    225
    Location:
    Netherlands
    See http://www.flashtester.org/ for comprehensive info on most flash players.
     
  10. wrongway67

    wrongway67 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    45
    online: http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html
     
  11. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    At the bottom: Adobe Flash Player Storage settings:

    flash-settings.png
     
  12. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Thanks to you, Eureka!
     
  13. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    The usual reason would be streamlining and removal of unneeded UI/options. Set your options to block all cookies, and every time you visit a site that tries to set cookies a cookie icon will appear in the Omnibar. Click it and select "Show cookies and other site data...", and you can whitelist that particular site if you want to. A much better approach than throwing a popup for EVERY single cookie if you ask me.

    And if you need more control than that: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fngmhnnpilhplaeedifhccceomclgfbg

    If you want to be honest, you might want to add that this particular issue is merely a smokescreen for the real reasons behind your choice.
     
  14. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    For me, it is not a mandatory feature to have, because I always do what you mentioned. I always block cookies, and then if I see the blocked cookie icon in the omnibar, I temporarily add it to exclusions.
    That's the reason I never noticed anything had changed. Not a big deal, for me.

    But, many other people rather have the browser let them know a web site is trying to set a cookie, and allow or deny accordingly.

    I just don't understand why taking it off. Maybe is not to have much stuff in the UI? Hardly to believe, as it won't be a tiny detail that will bloat it. Maybe it is...

    Wasn't familiar with this extension.
     
  15. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    As already explained, the user will still be notified, and be given the choice to allow or deny. The notification became less obtrusive, but as far as I can tell, that's pretty much it, and an extension is available if you need (want?) more funky tricks with your cookies.

    As for it being a tiny detail, Chrome has always had a more-rigorous-than-usual policy of paring down "superfluous" elements ever since day one. Not everyone is going to agree that policy, obviously, but it's a selling point if you ask me.
     
  16. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
  17. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,917
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  18. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    I really like Chrome, I hate this fast releasing.. How soon until they start running out of usefull features to add and start bloating it up with things like "tab candy" in Firefox and "Unite" in Opera? :/

    Really hope it doesn't reach that point!
     
  19. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    So far they've been rather firm on keeping bloat as optional to the extensions kingdom. Howver, the post-install size of the Chrome folder on a PC is 250 MB+ (after deleting everything in cache, history, etc). This 250 MB+ includes the entire previous version, installers for both versions, plus their own versions of a pdf reader and a flash player. I suspect the previous version folder can be deleted without adverse effect but I don't want to be a pioneer here.

    If you visit the issues page (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/), you'll find some pretty ugly and heated arguments for this, that, and the other option along with calls for democracy and progress by consensus. The devs often respond with a "Won't Fix" tag :D
     
  20. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    They are actually behind a bit, at least in regards to hardware acceleration. It's not becoming fully done until version 9. I'm going to stress that this is my opinion, but I think the quicker releases are eventually going to bring about more bugs, and security issues. I was originally for it, considering how often we deal with browser vulnerabilities, but I now think it will have the opposite effect and just cause problems.

    I don't really think at this point that bloat is avoidable. Every vendor is wanting to copy each other, even Opera is getting in on the act with extensions. Of course for Opera, it's more of a survival tactic than a real want to copy other browsers (on desktops, that is).
     
  21. Sadeghi85

    Sadeghi85 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    747
    It's very useful feature, I use it a lot as I open lots of tabs. Chrome can handle lots of tabs but the tab bar is not scrollable and there is no "tab candy" feature so the amount of tabs you can open at once is limited.
     
  22. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    The good thing is that often the bloat can be avoided since it depends on us, on how many extensions we choose to install.
     
  23. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Bloat though isn't limited to extensions. It's also rather unnecessary features, though, yes, unnecessary is a matter of personal opinion.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.