You really just shouldn't use brave..
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
142 points (92.3% liked)
Privacy
32109 readers
844 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you think we are not Brave enough.
Sorry... I will see myself out.
load more comments
(50 replies)
Anyoneserioius about privacy should not be using a chromium browser, and should definitely not be using brave.
Firefox is safer and tbh, has probably the best UX and aesthetics out of anyone. Brave is garbage.
For incognito browsing I recommend Librewolf, a firefox fork. If you want anything more secure, you should start looking into tor
As a Firefox user, the only thing Brave does that I wish Firefox would copy is their fingerprinting resistance. I know Firefox does have fingerprinting resistance but it's nowhere near the same level as Brave.
Use privacy badger extension
No. Firefox with RFP, Arkenfox user.js, Librewolf or Tor-Browser unifies your fingerprint. Its universal among users. Brave scrambles it, while some may say that is actually not a real fingerprint and can be detected, making you stand out extremely
Just to be clear, are you saying Firefox with fingerprinting resistance used in conjunction with Arkenfox user.js provides fingerprint unification, similar to what Tor browser does? I'll have to check that out.
I think both approaches are valid tbh. Having a unique fingerprint obviously uniquely identified you, but if it's randomised then your browsing sessions can't (in theory) be linked.
Yes. Arkenfox to my knowledge is 1:1 Tor configs. Librewolf is similar to arkenfox, no real differences afaik.
For regular browsing though, this means that everything is always deleted. So if you may change some configs, you mayyy be fingerprintable.
Good thing though, different from Tor-Browser is, that it deletes everything without using the private browsing mode. This means, that it has way more capabilities, and saving session for example has no fingerprinting effect really, as favicons and cache can be cleared.
The problem with randomized UserAgent is afaik, that in firefox it cant really fake a complete, real browser, fonts and all. So it would be very nice 90% of the time, but big tracking sites would know exactly who you are
So if you may change some configs, you mayyy be fingerprintable.
You are fingerprintable either way unless you go all out. Going full on Arkenfox/Librewolf mode (with all settings enabled that decrease convenience) you can at most fool naive fingerprinting. For the more advanced one you need Tor.
And even for naive fingerprinting, unless you use Tor or a VPN (which you would have to trust) your IP alone + the fact that you use FF (which a few % of people worldwide do) along with some other basic info about your PC will make you very unique.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
safer?
Brave is just a shill for Google mothership. Firefox is leading privacy and security through browsers.
Firefox has a weaker sandbox than chromium and less mature site isolation and therefore has lower security. privacy is a different story, but remember you're only as private as you are secure so Firefox is inherently not that private assuming a malicious site escapes the sandbox.
I'm fully against chrome's growing monopoly as well as Google surveillance capitalism but let's not be so dramatic with the "google mother ship" nonsense.
using chromium as a base does not equal data being sent back to Google, just like using Android as a base doesn't inherently send data back to Google.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I disagree. Firefox is fine, but saying chromium is spyware because its primarily maintained by google is like saying android is spyware.
Additionally chromium browsers are arguably more secure than Firefox, and has more advanced sand boxing. So much so that graphine OS used chromium instead of Firefox for their vanadium browser.
Only thing I agree with is not using brave.. Cause well.. They fishy.
I truly appreciate the perspective of this post. I would like to switch fully to Firefox and support the cause. Unfortunately I have a PWA addiction and that is the only thing keeping me living my shameful hybrid browser life.
Is it a weak reason? Probably. But it's an honest one. If Mozilla hopped on PWAs, I'd be totally fine bouncing from Brave and joining the Chromium rebellion.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'll be the one to stay on topic instead of joining the omgchromebad crowd.
My question/concern would be, why would a browser need to connect to an outside source in order to Forget your browsing? What would it need to reference?
view more: next ›