info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Adobe Acrobat Reader DC Update Installs Chrome Browser Extension
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Nathan Hale
Jan 14, 2017, 12:58:49 AM1/14/17
to
In article <baf49fb8ab4ab3fb...@hoi-polloi.org>
Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
Mayayana
Jan 14, 2017, 9:41:50 AM1/14/17
to
"Nathan Hale" <nob...@remailer.org.uk> wrote
| >
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
|
| adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
|
I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
become more relevant. This has always been their
strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
online, yet most people have it installed and don't
even know it.
Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
Flash empire. It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
were nothing more than a Flash software program,
with virtually no HTML. They've done the same with
PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
though it were the only PDF software.
That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
little regard for their privacy.
| >
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
|
| adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
|
become more relevant. This has always been their
strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
online, yet most people have it installed and don't
even know it.
Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
Flash empire. It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
were nothing more than a Flash software program,
with virtually no HTML. They've done the same with
PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
though it were the only PDF software.
That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
little regard for their privacy.
David B.
Jan 14, 2017, 1:39:43 PM1/14/17
to
On 14/01/2017 14:41, Mayayana claimed ....
> Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> little regard for their privacy.
There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
You KNOW that, Mayayana!
See: Message-ID: <CqdeA.525051$ZA1.2...@fx22.fr7>
--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it."
> Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> little regard for their privacy.
You KNOW that, Mayayana!
See: Message-ID: <CqdeA.525051$ZA1.2...@fx22.fr7>
--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it."
Mayayana
Jan 14, 2017, 3:50:52 PM1/14/17
to
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote
| > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
| You KNOW that, Mayayana!
|
No, I don't. This is the same discussion as a few
posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
the outside world.
No one has to let Google follow them around by
installing Chrome. For that matter, there's really
no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
HOSTS file.
No one has to let for-profit corporations spy on
and claim co-ownership of their email or stored files.
No one has to put up with targetted ads, web bugs,
or online spying in general. Some privacy efforts
require more effort than others. Some may require
sacrifices. But there's just no excuse for using freebie
webmail, online storage, or Chrome. Those are easy
choices to make with no cost aside from a little bit
of effort. If you use any of them you have no
nusiness complaining about loss of privacy because
you're helping to create that world.
When I go online I show my IP address. (Though I
could block that with something like Tor. Some
people, in dangerous countries, have to do that.)
I provide very little else to be tracked. There are
arcane methods that could help to track me, but
in general, I'm invisible to the spyware ad business
and the datamining marketers. You can be, too.
By contrast, the average person online is probably
personally identified by numerous companies at
every page they visit.
| > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
| You KNOW that, Mayayana!
|
posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
the outside world.
No one has to let Google follow them around by
installing Chrome. For that matter, there's really
no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
HOSTS file.
No one has to let for-profit corporations spy on
and claim co-ownership of their email or stored files.
No one has to put up with targetted ads, web bugs,
or online spying in general. Some privacy efforts
require more effort than others. Some may require
sacrifices. But there's just no excuse for using freebie
webmail, online storage, or Chrome. Those are easy
choices to make with no cost aside from a little bit
of effort. If you use any of them you have no
nusiness complaining about loss of privacy because
you're helping to create that world.
When I go online I show my IP address. (Though I
could block that with something like Tor. Some
people, in dangerous countries, have to do that.)
I provide very little else to be tracked. There are
arcane methods that could help to track me, but
in general, I'm invisible to the spyware ad business
and the datamining marketers. You can be, too.
By contrast, the average person online is probably
personally identified by numerous companies at
every page they visit.
David B.
Jan 14, 2017, 4:02:59 PM1/14/17
to
Nomen Nescio
Jan 15, 2017, 7:36:44 AM1/15/17
to
In article <o5dd8c$mj2$1...@dont-email.me>
You could say the same for Mozilla. I wish there was a browser
extension to use anonymous remailers. Now THAT would something.
extension to use anonymous remailers. Now THAT would something.
Mayayana
Jan 15, 2017, 11:00:41 AM1/15/17
to
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote
| > And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
| > extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
| > king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| You could say the same for Mozilla.
The SRWare Iron site has a listing of the numerous
tracking details built into Chrome:
https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php
The Mozillians may be taking the low road in the past
few years, but at least FF is realtively configurable,thanks
to extension makers. Chrome spyware is built-in and Google
is essentially a for-profit spyware and advertising company.
I read recently that the original creator of FF (Brendan
Eich), has created a new browser. The Brave browser. It
turns out that's a profound misnomer. Brave, based on
Chromium, is designed to be spyware. It seems to be
based on the presumtion that the Internet is doomed to
be no more than a commercial venue. A corporate shopping
mall. So the best we can do is to kick out the sleaziest
mall tenants.
https://www.brave.com/blogpost_1.html
His thinking in a nutshell: The Internet must have ads to
survive and ads come with spyware, so lets make better
spyware. Classic money-crazed, murky-logic, Silicon Valley
hipster thinking in "social progressive" sheeps' clothing.
| > And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
| > extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
| > king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| You could say the same for Mozilla.
tracking details built into Chrome:
https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php
The Mozillians may be taking the low road in the past
few years, but at least FF is realtively configurable,thanks
to extension makers. Chrome spyware is built-in and Google
is essentially a for-profit spyware and advertising company.
I read recently that the original creator of FF (Brendan
Eich), has created a new browser. The Brave browser. It
turns out that's a profound misnomer. Brave, based on
Chromium, is designed to be spyware. It seems to be
based on the presumtion that the Internet is doomed to
be no more than a commercial venue. A corporate shopping
mall. So the best we can do is to kick out the sleaziest
mall tenants.
https://www.brave.com/blogpost_1.html
His thinking in a nutshell: The Internet must have ads to
survive and ads come with spyware, so lets make better
spyware. Classic money-crazed, murky-logic, Silicon Valley
hipster thinking in "social progressive" sheeps' clothing.
nospam
Jan 7, 2022, 3:52:26 PM1/7/22
to
In article <o5e2sb$6ig$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
steps to block it, but even then, that only minimizes it.
> For that matter, there's really
> no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
> absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
> You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
> You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
> Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
> HOSTS file.
those are some of the steps, although a hosts file is not an efficient
method to do it.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> | > little regard for their privacy.
> |
> | There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
> | You KNOW that, Mayayana!
> |
>
> No, I don't. This is the same discussion as a few
> posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
> no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
> the outside world.
>
> No one has to let Google follow them around by
> installing Chrome.
google will follow you around no matter what you do unless you take
> "David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> | > little regard for their privacy.
> |
> | There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
> | You KNOW that, Mayayana!
> |
>
> No, I don't. This is the same discussion as a few
> posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
> no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
> the outside world.
>
> No one has to let Google follow them around by
> installing Chrome.
steps to block it, but even then, that only minimizes it.
> For that matter, there's really
> no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
> absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
> You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
> You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
> Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
> HOSTS file.
method to do it.
nospam
Jan 7, 2022, 3:52:26 PM1/7/22
to
In article <o5dd8c$mj2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
many years before that.
> Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
> with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
> Flash empire.
cellphones helped its demise (not javascript), but it would have
eventually gone away on its own.
> It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
> were nothing more than a Flash software program,
> with virtually no HTML.
fortunately, those days are long gone.
> They've done the same with
> PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
> and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
> to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
> real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
> though it were the only PDF software.
nope. pdfs were never intended to be a type of web page, a concept that
does not even make any sense.
> That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
> Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
> also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
> javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
> to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
> the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
pdf is not proprietary. it's an iso standard and widely supported.
> The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
> marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
> standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
it's not a trick. the chrome extension is to make it easier for users
to read pdfs. making things easier for users is a good thing.
> And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
> one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
> majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
> successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
> infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
> vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
ar or air? they're two very, very different things. ar is not something
adobe is doing.
> And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
> extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
> king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> little regard for their privacy.
there are browsers based on the chrome engine, without the google
spyware bits.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
> |
>
> I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
> become more relevant. This has always been their
> strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
> by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
> online, yet most people have it installed and don't
> even know it.
flash is dead, officially last year but had been on life support for
> | adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
> |
>
> I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
> become more relevant. This has always been their
> strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
> by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
> online, yet most people have it installed and don't
> even know it.
many years before that.
> Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
> with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
> Flash empire.
eventually gone away on its own.
> It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
> were nothing more than a Flash software program,
> with virtually no HTML.
> They've done the same with
> PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
> and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
> to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
> real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
> though it were the only PDF software.
does not even make any sense.
> That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
> Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
> also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
> javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
> to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
> the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
> The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
> marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
> standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
to read pdfs. making things easier for users is a good thing.
> And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
> one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
> majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
> successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
> infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
> vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
adobe is doing.
> And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
> extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
> king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> little regard for their privacy.
spyware bits.
nomad
May 18, 2022, 5:02:23 AM5/18/22
to
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 15:52:25 -0500
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > No one has to let Google follow them around by
> > installing Chrome.
>
> google will follow you around no matter what you do unless you take
> steps to block it, but even then, that only minimizes it.
Just because perfect anonymity might not be achievable doesn't mean one has to hand all of one's data over to Google et al on a silver platter. I know you aren't suggesting that, but I think that was the OP's point.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > No one has to let Google follow them around by
> > installing Chrome.
>
> google will follow you around no matter what you do unless you take
> steps to block it, but even then, that only minimizes it.
Nomad
--
gemini://nomad.flounder.online/
nomad
May 18, 2022, 1:36:13 PM5/18/22
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 11:00:37 -0500
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> I read recently that the original creator of FF (Brendan
> Eich), has created a new browser. The Brave browser. It
> turns out that's a profound misnomer. Brave, based on
> Chromium, is designed to be spyware. It seems to be
> based on the presumtion that the Internet is doomed to
> be no more than a commercial venue. A corporate shopping
> mall. So the best we can do is to kick out the sleaziest
> mall tenants.
> https://www.brave.com/blogpost_1.html
>
> His thinking in a nutshell: The Internet must have ads to
> survive and ads come with spyware, so lets make better
> spyware. Classic money-crazed, murky-logic, Silicon Valley
> hipster thinking in "social progressive" sheeps' clothing.
I wouldn't call Eich a hipster. He got fired from Mozilla after it was revealed he had made a small donation to an organization opposed to same-sex marriage. More recently he was in the news for questioning the official covid narrative:
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> I read recently that the original creator of FF (Brendan
> Eich), has created a new browser. The Brave browser. It
> turns out that's a profound misnomer. Brave, based on
> Chromium, is designed to be spyware. It seems to be
> based on the presumtion that the Internet is doomed to
> be no more than a commercial venue. A corporate shopping
> mall. So the best we can do is to kick out the sleaziest
> mall tenants.
> https://www.brave.com/blogpost_1.html
>
> His thinking in a nutshell: The Internet must have ads to
> survive and ads come with spyware, so lets make better
> spyware. Classic money-crazed, murky-logic, Silicon Valley
> hipster thinking in "social progressive" sheeps' clothing.
[start quote]
Dec. 22, 2020
A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive, Brendan Eich, is in hot water again for his views on topics far from technology.
Last time around, in 2014, Mr. Eich was pushed out of his job as the top executive of the Mozilla web browser project as a result of donations he had made in opposition to same-sex marriage.
This time, Mr. Eich is facing blowback from users of his new web browser project, Brave, over his skeptical views on public policy around the coronavirus pandemic.
In recent months, Mr. Eich’s Twitter feed has largely alternated between promotion of the privacy-focused Brave browser and questions about the policy and science related to the coronavirus.
His posts on Twitter have expressed skepticism about many prevailing assumptions around the pandemic, including the effectiveness of masks and the honesty of Anthony Fauci.
[end quote]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-eich-covid-19.html
I prefer LibreWolf (Firefox based) to Brave, but Brave remains a decent enough browser and I wish the company continuing success. Lately I find myself regularly using the onion version of its search engine.
Eich explaining his business model in a Ted Talk a few years ago:
https://invidious.weblibre.org/watch?v=zlcnOr81lPc
Onion link:
http://grwp24hodrefzvjjuccrkw3mjq4tzhaaq32amf33dzpmuxe7ilepcmad.onion/watch?v=zlcnOr81lPc
Nomad
--
gemini://nomad.flounder.online/
0 new messages