Is this browser private? Does it implement proper sandboxing and have any methods of anti-fingerprinting? I hope it eventually see the implementation of a robust content blocker. What makes this related to privacy and not instead just open source. While it is nice to see an independent web engine, if there is no method of anti-fingerprinting, the privacy of this browser is severely limited.
All I was saying is it isn’t ready for use as a browser, it states on the github that it is in pre-alpha. It doesn’t have the threat model goal of protecting fingerprintable metrics. Using this over security and privacy hardened firefox, even in the future once all the web standards are supported, will worsen your privacy. There needs to be intentional development of anti-fingerprinting measures.
I like choice, this isn’t ready and OP should have added more context then just a title and a github. This is not a privacy browser, this is a tech demo.
I don’t think anyone was trying to imply that it was ready. Of course once it gets more mature then things like privacy will likely start to become more integrated.
Making a post in the privacy community with the tittle “truly independent browser” and a github link makes it seem that this project is related to privacy somehow. Nothing on the github has anything to do with privacy. There is no reason to believe the Dev has any intention to add privacy protection features. It is just another web engine. The only reason gecko has a lot of its anti fingerprinting is because of upstreamed features from the Tor browser, not because gecko’s developers engineered them. So my question is still “how does this relate to the privacy community instead of the open source community”.
I think some would consider the mere fact that it is independent, to be a positive for privacy in ways other than fingerprinting. I understand not everyone agrees, but I can see why some would think this.
Is this browser private? Does it implement proper sandboxing and have any methods of anti-fingerprinting? I hope it eventually see the implementation of a robust content blocker. What makes this related to privacy and not instead just open source. While it is nice to see an independent web engine, if there is no method of anti-fingerprinting, the privacy of this browser is severely limited.
It isn’t done yet. They are targeting 2026
My point exactly. It isn’t ready and OP gave no context for why this relates to privacy. Better suited for the open source community on Lemmy.
It is good for freedom of choice which ultimately is good for privacy
All I was saying is it isn’t ready for use as a browser, it states on the github that it is in pre-alpha. It doesn’t have the threat model goal of protecting fingerprintable metrics. Using this over security and privacy hardened firefox, even in the future once all the web standards are supported, will worsen your privacy. There needs to be intentional development of anti-fingerprinting measures.
I like choice, this isn’t ready and OP should have added more context then just a title and a github. This is not a privacy browser, this is a tech demo.
I don’t think anyone was trying to imply that it was ready. Of course once it gets more mature then things like privacy will likely start to become more integrated.
Making a post in the privacy community with the tittle “truly independent browser” and a github link makes it seem that this project is related to privacy somehow. Nothing on the github has anything to do with privacy. There is no reason to believe the Dev has any intention to add privacy protection features. It is just another web engine. The only reason gecko has a lot of its anti fingerprinting is because of upstreamed features from the Tor browser, not because gecko’s developers engineered them. So my question is still “how does this relate to the privacy community instead of the open source community”.
I think some would consider the mere fact that it is independent, to be a positive for privacy in ways other than fingerprinting. I understand not everyone agrees, but I can see why some would think this.