what is storage/default in profile folder

[Chuck Anderson]

I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.

What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://cycletourist.com
Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In
*****************************

[WaltS48]

On 05/11/2015 02:43 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>
> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>

Could be Site preferences and Offline Website Data.

Both can be cleared using Settings for Clearing History when you close
Firefox.

Options > Privacy > Clear History when Firefox closes. To see that, you
have to have Firefox set to Use custom settings for history in the same
location.

But then you will be resetting preferences every time you visit a site
you have set preferences for.

--
Kubuntu 14.10 | KDE 4.14.1 | Thunderbird 38.0b4 (Beta)
Make your plans to attend now!
[Dollar Bank Three Rivers Arts Festival](http://www.3riversartsfest.org/)
[Pittsburgh Pride | All You Need is Love](http://www.pittsburghpride.org/)
Go Bucs!

[Dave Royal]

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> Wrote in message:

> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>
> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>

Websites can use it, and so can addons.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Storage_API
--
(Remove any numerics from my email address.)

[EE]

WaltS48 wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 02:43 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>
>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>
> Could be Site preferences and Offline Website Data.
>
> Both can be cleared using Settings for Clearing History when you close
> Firefox.
>
> Options > Privacy > Clear History when Firefox closes. To see that, you
> have to have Firefox set to Use custom settings for history in the same
> location.
>
> But then you will be resetting preferences every time you visit a site
> you have set preferences for.
>

Site preferences are stored in the permissions file. I would suspect
that storage would be for DOM Storage. I have such a folder with 2
sub-folders called persistent and temporary. There are no files in any
of them.

[Chuck Anderson]

WaltS48 wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 02:43 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>
>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>
> Could be Site preferences and Offline Website Data.

Sounds like the best guess so far - offline website data. I know how to
use localStorage and as developer.mozilla.org states:

"In Firefox the DOM storage data is stored in the webappsstore.sqlite
file in the profile folder."

I even wrote a Php script that lets me view (and delete) the contents of
webappsstore.sqlite

The only problem with the offline website data guess is that I have
always checked "Tell me when a website asks to store data for offline
use," and I don't think I've ever seen a prompt. Firefox also reports
0 bytes being used, so ..... ?

>
> Both can be cleared using Settings for Clearing History when you close
> Firefox.
>
> Options > Privacy > Clear History when Firefox closes. To see that, you
> have to have Firefox set to Use custom settings for history in the same
> location.
>
> But then you will be resetting preferences every time you visit a site
> you have set preferences for.

I have never worried about the consequences of saving history (nor form
data) - and more precisely, I have come to rely on it to remember things
for me. I have never cleared form history or location history - and
that is very much on purpose.

[Chuck Anderson]

Dave Royal wrote:
> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>
>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>
> Websites can use it, and so can addons.
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Storage_API

Yes, the new name for DOM Storage (localStorage and SessionStorage) ,
which I have learned to use in JavaScript. That data is store in the
profile folder in webappsstore.sqlite.

[Chuck Anderson]

In storage/default I have two folders:
storage\default\http+++www.avclub.com
storage\default\https+++www.bostonglobe.com

It is tedious going through the sqlite files (several empty tables in
each with a smattering of data in a couple of others). I can not make
sense of what is stored there.

In storage/permanent I find: moz-safe-about+home

Still no idea what is there, how it got there, or if I can disable it.

It is not DOM/Web Storage - and does not appear to be offline website
data. ??

[Dave Royal]

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> Dave Royal wrote:
>> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>>
>>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>>
>>
>> Websites can use it, and so can addons.
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Storage_API
>
> Yes, the new name for DOM Storage (localStorage and SessionStorage) ,
> which I have learned to use in JavaScript. That data is store in the
> profile folder in webappsstore.sqlite.
>

OK. I thought it must be something new. I'm familiar with DOM
storage and used it in userscripts.

What about "simple storage" which is in the addons SDK? But I
think this comes from websites not addons.

I also have idb stuff in there (on Android), also github.ioand
mus.br. If I clear offline web data it's still there.

[Caver1]

On 05/11/2015 02:43 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:

> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>
> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>

Preferences that different sites need for their website to work the way
they want or information on you that is useful, for that site, such as
what you looked at and bought last time at a shopping site etc.
It's basically storage for cookies that are up to 10MB in size that
pesist between sessions. If you delete it can be recreated.
The only way to stop it is in about:config> dom.storage.enabled=false.
then nothing can be stored there.
Some things on some sites or entire sites might not work in doing this.
So far in my wondering I have only run into one site that wouldn't work.
If you use Javascipt player it's settings are kept there so you would
need to reset them everytime you used it if you disable DOM storage.
Really don't know how much it is actually used now. It's a Windows thing.
If you don't want to totally disable DOM storage but you want to control
it there is a firefox extension, Better Privacy, That will let you
delete everything there on say a session basis or even on a time basis.
You can protect certain cookies in DOM storage so they won't be deleted when
everything else is.
I think it can also stop anything from being stored in DOM storage but
I'm not sure.


--
Caver1

[Chuck Anderson]

Are you sure about DOM storage. It is my understanding - and I have
made use of it myself using JavaScript - that DOM storage is kept in an
sqlite database file in the profile root -> webappsstore.sqlite.

Still totally baffled. My web searches have produced no information,
yet there it is - data stored by web sites I have visited - and it does
not appear to be DOM storage.

Here is the structure of one of the sqlite databases - nine separate
TABLES and a couple of TRIGGERS. This is not DOM storage. DOM storage
is simple key=value pairs, not a complex structure like this.

sqlite> .schema
CREATE TABLE database (name TEXT NOT NULL, version INTEGER NOT NULL
DEFAULT 0);
CREATE TABLE object_store (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, auto_increment
INTEGER NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, name TEXT NOT NULL, key_path TEXT, UNIQUE
(name));
CREATE TABLE object_data (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, object_store_id
INTEGER NOT NULL, key_value BLOB DEFAULT NULL, file_ids TEXT, data BLOB
NOT NULL, UNIQUE (object_store_id, key_value), FOREIGN KEY
(object_store_id) REFERENCES object_store(id) ON DELETE CASCADE);
CREATE TABLE object_store_index (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, object_store_id
INTEGER NOT NULL, name TEXT NOT NULL, key_path TEXT NOT NULL,
unique_index INTEGER NOT NULL, multientry INTEGER NOT NULL, UNIQUE
(object_store_id, name), FOREIGN KEY (object_store_id) REFERENCES
object_store(id) ON DELETE CASCADE);
CREATE TABLE index_data (index_id INTEGER NOT NULL, value BLOB NOT NULL,
object_data_key BLOB NOT NULL, object_data_id INTEGER NOT NULL, PRIMARY
KEY (index_id, value, object_data_key), FOREIGN KEY (index_id)
REFERENCES object_store_index(id) ON DELETE CASCADE, FOREIGN KEY
(object_data_id) REFERENCES object_data(id) ON DELETE CASCADE);
CREATE INDEX index_data_object_data_id_index ON index_data (object_data_id);
CREATE TABLE unique_index_data (index_id INTEGER NOT NULL, value BLOB
NOT NULL, object_data_key BLOB NOT NULL, object_data_id INTEGER NOT
NULL, PRIMARY KEY (index_id, value, object_data_key), UNIQUE (index_id,
value), FOREIGN KEY (index_id) REFERENCES object_store_index(id) ON
DELETE CASCADE FOREIGN KEY (object_data_id) REFERENCES object_data(id)
ON DELETE CASCADE);
CREATE INDEX unique_index_data_object_data_id_index ON unique_index_data
(object_data_id);
CREATE TABLE file (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, refcount INTEGER NOT NULL);
CREATE TRIGGER object_data_insert_trigger AFTER INSERT ON object_data
FOR EACH ROW WHEN NEW.file_ids IS NOT NULL BEGIN SELECT
update_refcount(NULL, NEW.file_ids); END;
CREATE TRIGGER object_data_update_trigger AFTER UPDATE OF file_ids ON
object_data FOR EACH ROW WHEN OLD.file_ids IS NOT NULL OR NEW.file_ids
IS NOT NULL BEGIN SELECT update_refcount(OLD.file_ids, NEW.file_ids); END;
CREATE TRIGGER object_data_delete_trigger AFTER DELETE ON object_data
FOR EACH ROW WHEN OLD.file_ids IS NOT NULL BEGIN SELECT
update_refcount(OLD.file_ids, NULL); END;
CREATE TRIGGER file_update_trigger AFTER UPDATE ON file FOR EACH ROW
WHEN NEW.refcount = 0 BEGIN DELETE FROM file WHERE id = OLD.id; END;

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3325.143132665...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>
> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?

<https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
the W3C spec and MDN docs.

> Can I disable it's usage?

Yes, but don't do it.

[Chuck Anderson]

Like speaking to a child.

Care to explain. It looks like it is a Javascript API that allows web
sites to store a lot of data in my browser - without my knowledge or
control - just another privacy breach.

I just deleted the entries there - from two online newspapers and then
set dom.indexedDB.enabled to false. Let's see what happens.

[Ed Mullen]

Chuck Anderson wrote on 5/13/2015 3:08 AM:
> »Q« wrote:
>> In
>> <news:mailman.3325.143132665...@lists.mozilla.org>,
>> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>>
>>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
>> the W3C spec and MDN docs.
>>> Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>> Yes, but don't do it.
>
> Like speaking to a child.
>
> Care to explain. It looks like it is a Javascript API that allows web
> sites to store a lot of data in my browser - without my knowledge or
> control - just another privacy breach.
>
> I just deleted the entries there - from two online newspapers and then
> set dom.indexedDB.enabled to false. Let's see what happens.
>

I turned it off and couldn't log into my Web mail. Hmm. Only two sites
had data in that folder, my mail provider and Facebook. Let's see what
happens with FB ...

FB seems OK.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four
tellers?

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3605.143150092...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
> > In
> > <news:mailman.3325.143132665...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> > Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile
> >> and I can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In
> >> the idb subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
> >>
> >> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
> >
> > <https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
> > the W3C spec and MDN docs.
> >
> >> Can I disable it's usage?
> >
> > Yes, but don't do it.
>
> Like speaking to a child.
>
> Care to explain.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. I was in a hurry.

I don't understand them well enough provide a clear explanation to
because I haven't had time to do the research. I did just enough
research a while back to satisfy myself that it's only a trivia
question, so it got pushed to the back burner where it remains.

I know just enough to have no doubt that if you disable it and forget
about it, you are very likely to have a mystery sooner than later for
which the only remedy will be to reset Firefox. IOW, I just know
enough that if I post about disabling it I have to post a warning
against it. Again, I'm sorry I was too terse in doing so.

Trust me or don't; you get to keep the broken pieces if you don't.

> just another privacy breach.

Until *you* have done the research, including following the link I
*did* provide and reading and digesting all that's there, you have
absolutely no reason to say such a thing. I could type a bit about
what I *do* already know about it to counter your FUD, but why bother?

About me pointing you to the search term "indexeddb" in so you can
satisfy your own curiosity, you're welcome.

Hopefully, we are now done with annoying each other and can get back to
enjoying our browsers. :)

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3650.143153379...@lists.mozilla.org>,
Ed Mullen <ejEM...@edmullen.net> wrote:

[ indexeddb ]

> I turned it off and couldn't log into my Web mail. Hmm. Only two
> sites had data in that folder, my mail provider and Facebook. Let's
> see what happens with FB ...

Twitter login breaks.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3605.143150092...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> > <https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
> > the W3C spec and MDN docs.
> >
> >> Can I disable it's usage?
> >
> > Yes, but don't do it.
>
> Like speaking to a child.

Just to prove I know you're not a child, I'll mention that I would
*never* have pointed you to MDN docs and W3C specs if I didn't know from
your posting history that you are perfectly capable of digging into
them on your own.

I also know from your posting history that you enjoy digging into
things by tinkering with them, which is fine in this case too. I also
knew that in this case tinkering *will* (temporarily, as long as you're
mindful) break the web. I should have taken the time to say it that
way the first time, and again I apologize.

[EE]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
> »Q« wrote:
>> In
>> <news:mailman.3325.143132665...@lists.mozilla.org>,
>> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile and I
>>> can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In the idb
>>> subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>>
>>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
>> the W3C spec and MDN docs.
>>> Can I disable it's usage?
>>
>> Yes, but don't do it.
>
> Like speaking to a child.
>
> Care to explain. It looks like it is a Javascript API that allows web
> sites to store a lot of data in my browser - without my knowledge or
> control - just another privacy breach.
>
> I just deleted the entries there - from two online newspapers and then
> set dom.indexedDB.enabled to false. Let's see what happens.
>

I would set dom.storage.enabled to false. I had to allow the use of
dom.indexedDB in order for Adblock Plus to work. I have not seen any
stored web data files in my profile as a result.

[Chuck Anderson]

»Q« wrote:
> In
> <news:mailman.3605.143150092...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> In
>>> <news:mailman.3325.143132665...@lists.mozilla.org>,
>>> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just noticed the storage/default folder in my Firefox profile
>>>> and I can see subfolders with names of sites I have visited. In
>>>> the idb subfolder of those there is an sqlite file.
>>>>
>>>> What is being saved there? Can I disable it's usage?
>>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Glossary/IndexedDB> has links to
>>> the W3C spec and MDN docs.
>>>
>>>> Can I disable it's usage?
>>> Yes, but don't do it.
>> Like speaking to a child.
>>
>> Care to explain.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. I was in a hurry.

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that.

> I don't understand them well enough provide a clear explanation to
> because I haven't had time to do the research. I did just enough
> research a while back to satisfy myself that it's only a trivia
> question, so it got pushed to the back burner where it remains.
>
> I know just enough to have no doubt that if you disable it and forget
> about it, you are very likely to have a mystery sooner than later for
> which the only remedy will be to reset Firefox. IOW, I just know
> enough that if I post about disabling it I have to post a warning
> against it. Again, I'm sorry I was too terse in doing so.
>
> Trust me or don't; you get to keep the broken pieces if you don't.
>
>> just another privacy breach.
>
> Until *you* have done the research, including following the link I
> *did* provide and reading and digesting all that's there, you have
> absolutely no reason to say such a thing. I could type a bit about
> what I *do* already know about it to counter your FUD, but why bother?

Okay, so it is more than *just* a privacy breach - but it is,
nonetheless, a privacy breach. Another hidden privacy breach that no
one is talking about (like DOM storage was initially). If DOM storage
is "super cookies" then this is "super DOM storage."

> About me pointing you to the search term "indexeddb" in so you can
> satisfy your own curiosity, you're welcome.

LMGTFY ?

I went there and saw nothing (I bothered to understand) that explains
how it would be crucial to browser functionality. It sounds like an
addition to JavaScript - the indexedDB is used like a window object.

I did my own research as well and found a bugzilla report:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1079355
"Make 'dom.indexeddb.enabled' pref only affect content:

The developers are discussing whether they should make the pref only
affect web page content and not chrome pages. That makes sense to me.
I seems they use indexedDB for internal "chrome" functionality (probably
the reason I have a moz-safe-about+home folder in storage/permanent).

It's hard to truly follow the outcome of that discussion, but it sounds
to me like they are going to do so in a very near release - make the
pref only affect web site content.

To me it demonstrates - again - how developers talk a good talk when it
comes to privacy, but they don't walk the walk, accepting new
functionality that can be used the same as cookies and ignoring how it
affects users' privacy. In my case bostonglobe was saving a database's
worth of information in my browser - without my knowledge and with no
obvious way for me to decide if I want to allow it - or delete it. I
mean, WTH?

> Hopefully, we are now done with annoying each other and can get back to
> enjoying our browsers. :)

Except mine is broken (du duh dumm :)

Actually, no problems yet. Facebook, Gmail, Comcast web mail - I seldom
use any of those anyway - all work. Twitter, I have never bothered
with. I will remember that pref if I see new problems.

[Chuck Anderson]

Already accepted (thank you), but ...... "*will* break the web?" That's
a rather absurd notion. It reminds me of those old joke pages that
said, "You have reached the end of the Web." I am perusing the web just
fine - nothing's broken for me.

(Geez. If I do break the web, I hope no one figures out it was me.)

[EE]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
> »Q« wrote:
>

>Okay, so it is more than *just* a privacy breach - but it is,
> nonetheless, a privacy breach. Another hidden privacy breach that no
> one is talking about (like DOM storage was initially). If DOM storage
> is "super cookies" then this is "super DOM storage."
>
>> About me pointing you to the search term "indexeddb" in so you can
>> satisfy your own curiosity, you're welcome.

I was forced to allow dom.indexedDB to keep Adblock Plus working. There
is another setting - dom.indexedDB.warningQuota - which I set to 0 so
that I would get a warning if any site tried to store any data. I have
not received any warnings about that yet. Where would that data be stored?

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3718.143158392...@lists.mozilla.org>,
Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> Already accepted (thank you),

Well, I'm afraid we may be back at it.

> but ...... "*will* break the web?" That's a rather absurd notion.

It is an intentional (slight) absurdity. If a user "breaks the web",
it only means he has broken his own web experience. If you haven't yet
visited a web site that won't work because of the setting you changed
you will eventually, thus "you will break the web".

If Firefox developers "break the web", which they occasionally do by
accident, it's much more serious. It means they have made a change to
the browser that harms the web experiences for many users. They go
into "fire drill" mode and put out a "chemspill" release to remedy the
error they've made.

The web itself is breaking and healing all the time. Web developers
break things, and web developers fix things.

[Chuck Anderson]

»Q« wrote:
> In
> <news:mailman.3718.143158392...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Already accepted (thank you),
>
> Well, I'm afraid we may be back at it.
>
>> but ...... "*will* break the web?" That's a rather absurd notion.
>
> It is an intentional (slight) absurdity. If a user "breaks the web",
> it only means he has broken his own web experience. If you haven't yet
> visited a web site that won't work because of the setting you changed
> you will eventually, thus "you will break the web".

Why are you prolonging this obvious and off topic absurdity. I can only
break a page or site in my browser. How could I possibly "break the
web." That would mean it no longer works for anyone.

> If Firefox developers "break the web", which they occasionally do by
> accident, it's much more serious. It means they have made a change to
> the browser that harms the web experiences for many users.

But that is also not a broken web. Rather a breakage of some pages for
some users. Although FF developers can have a more profound affect on
many more people than I can with my browser on my computer, they still
can not "break the web."

> The web itself is breaking and healing all the time. Web developers
> break things, and web developers fix things.

Developers break and fix "things" on individual sites and may even
cripple their own product - perhaps a browser. But they can not break
the web. I don't understand your insistence on using the term "break
the web." Even IE can't do that. The way it is structured -
distributed into near infinite nodes - it is an impossibility.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3717.143158359...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> Okay, so it is more than *just* a privacy breach - but it is,
> nonetheless, a privacy breach.

No.

All I can do is try to express a few things clearly in hope that they
may help non-Chuck readers. Chuck's claim that indexeddb is a "privacy
breach" is wrong. Not only that, but in the years since indexeddb was
implemented in Firefox -- Fx 4.0 was the first release with it -- AFAIK
there have been no privacy breaches ever *associated* with indexeddb.
Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about and should be ignored on the
topic of indexeddb. If you get sucked in by the his FUD, it won't do
you any good and may do you some harm. It will at least waste your
time.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3833.143166806...@lists.mozilla.org>,
Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:

> > It is an intentional (slight) absurdity. If a user "breaks the
> > web", it only means he has broken his own web experience. If you
> > haven't yet visited a web site that won't work because of the
> > setting you changed you will eventually, thus "you will break the
> > web".
>
> Why are you prolonging this obvious and off topic absurdity. I can
> only break a page or site in my browser. How could I possibly "break
> the web."

\I've read my paragraph above several times over the course of
the day, and I cannot figure out where I went wrong in explaining how
the phrase is used, but it's clear I failed to communicate it.

It's comparable to the phrase "killing ponies" as in "Firefox is
killing ponies". No amount of telling people that this is absurd
nonsense is going to prevent them from continuing to it to mean that
something users were expecting to be a joy has instead turned out to
be painful to users, a phenomenon which is *not* absurd nonsense.

Nearly every time I try to help you understand something, I am met with
belligerent pushback from you. I don't understand whether that's
because of some problem with the way I try to help or if it's something
on your end, but rest assured I wish I had never pointed you to the API
you were asking about, and I won't waste another second of your time for
the rest of your life.

[Chuck Anderson]

»Q« wrote:
> In
> <news:mailman.3717.143158359...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so it is more than *just* a privacy breach - but it is,
>> nonetheless, a privacy breach.
>
> No.
>
> All I can do is try to express a few things clearly in hope that they
> may help non-Chuck readers. Chuck's claim that indexeddb is a "privacy
> breach" is wrong. Not only that, but in the years since indexeddb was
> implemented in Firefox -- Fx 4.0 was the first release with it -- AFAIK
> there have been no privacy breaches ever *associated* with indexeddb.

That you are aware of. The potential certainly exists.

> Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about and should be ignored on the
> topic of indexeddb. If you get sucked in by the his FUD, it won't do
> you any good and may do you some harm. It will at least waste your
> time.

You sure do like speaking to others (me) in a derogatory manner. That
is why I push back. My biggest pet peeve is arrogance. And talking
down to someone like a child - and calling their ideas F***ed up is
clear arrogance. Why the confrontational attitude?

I come in peace, man. I simply want to understand.

And ...... I don't want web sites storing data on my PC without my
knowledge. I like my privacy.

IndexedDB provides a method for web sites to store large amounts of
whatever data they wish (using a database) - on my PC. Firefox provides
no method that allows to manage that data (allow, disallow or clear), or
to even be made aware of it's presence.

How is that *not* a privacy concern?

Firefox has seen fit to provide methods to manage cookies, and DOM
storage due to privacy concerns, yet nothing for IndexedDB, which has
the same ability to store and retrieve data from my PC. In fact, it
facilitates storing up to 10MBs. To me, that is clearly an overlooked
privacy breach.

Why are developers having a lengthy discussion about the need to provide
users with a method to disable indexedDB storage of content (external)
that will not interfere with its use by chrome (internal)?

And I've never heard the expression killing ponies, so saying that about
Firefox makes absolutely no sense to me, either. The same goes for
breaking the web. Both are obvious impossibilities. How can you say
any different? Can you point to one example of either ever happening
(Firefox causing equine deaths, or crashing the web)?

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.3929.143182997...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chuck Anderson <seem...@thisis.invalid> wrote:

> > Chuck's claim that indexeddb is a "privacy breach" is wrong. Not
> > only that, but in the years since indexeddb was implemented in
> > Firefox -- Fx 4.0 was the first release with it -- AFAIK there have
> > been no privacy breaches ever *associated* with indexeddb.
>
> That you are aware of.

The sky isn't falling as far as I am aware, yes. Please stop the FUD.

> The potential certainly exists.

The potential for a privacy breach exists in all browsers at all
times. Please stop the FUD.

> Why are developers having a lengthy discussion about the need to
> provide users with a method to disable indexedDB storage of content
> (external) that will not interfere with its use by chrome (internal)?

They didn't have any such lengthy discussion; you have misread a bug
report. Please stop the FUD.

In that bug, they only "discuss the need to provide users with a method
to disable indexeddb" long enough to make it clear to even the casual
reader that there *is* *no* *such* *need*. Please stop the FUD.

They make it *extremely* clear that the hidden pref is *not* there for
users to monkey with. Please stop the FUD.

*Many* of the hidden prefs for Firefox are *not* there for users to
monkey with. I am really sorry I gave you enough info to find one of
them. Please just decide whether to toggle it or not, and stop posting
FUD about it.

[EE]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
> And ...... I don't want web sites storing data on my PC without my
> knowledge. I like my privacy.
>
> IndexedDB provides a method for web sites to store large amounts of
> whatever data they wish (using a database) - on my PC. Firefox provides
> no method that allows to manage that data (allow, disallow or clear), or
> to even be made aware of it's presence.
>
> How is that *not* a privacy concern?
>
> Firefox has seen fit to provide methods to manage cookies, and DOM
> storage due to privacy concerns, yet nothing for IndexedDB, which has
> the same ability to store and retrieve data from my PC. In fact, it
> facilitates storing up to 10MBs. To me, that is clearly an overlooked
> privacy breach.

I would not say that there is no way to be made aware of indexedDB
storage. There is another setting in about:config called
"dom.indexedDB.warningQuota". If the amount of data to be stored
exceeds the quota, you should get a warning. If you set the number to 0
then any attempt to store information should produce a warning.

[Wolf K.]

There's also dom.indexedDB.enabled. Set it to false.

--
Best,
Wolf K.
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

[EE]

Adblock Plus would not work with that set to false. That was why I
modified the warning quota.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.4180.143206064...@lists.mozilla.org>,
EE <nu...@bees.wax> wrote:

> Wolf K. wrote:

> > There's also dom.indexedDB.enabled. Set it to false.
>
> Adblock Plus would not work with that set to false.

That's been fixed. Disabling it now only breaks web pages, not
extensions.

[B00ze/Empire]

On 2015-05-17 12:43, EE <nu...@bees.wax> wrote:

> I would not say that there is no way to be made aware of indexedDB
> storage. There is another setting in about:config called
> "dom.indexedDB.warningQuota". If the amount of data to be stored
> exceeds the quota, you should get a warning. If you set the number to 0
> then any attempt to store information should produce a warning.

Zero might disable the warning altogether; I set it to 1 (it's in MB,
that's a huge amount of data before we get warned). In fact, this pref
might no longer work at all, see:

http://www.raymondcamden.com/2015/04/17/indexeddb-and-limits

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain / B00...@hotmail.com
! (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/Planetary-Society-+-
oO-( )-Oo Windows error 1A Data overwritten, terribly sorry.

[EE]

B00ze/Empire wrote:
> On 2015-05-17 12:43, EE <nu...@bees.wax> wrote:
>
>> I would not say that there is no way to be made aware of indexedDB
>> storage. There is another setting in about:config called
>> "dom.indexedDB.warningQuota". If the amount of data to be stored
>> exceeds the quota, you should get a warning. If you set the number to 0
>> then any attempt to store information should produce a warning.
>
> Zero might disable the warning altogether; I set it to 1 (it's in MB,
> that's a huge amount of data before we get warned). In fact, this pref
> might no longer work at all, see:
>
> http://www.raymondcamden.com/2015/04/17/indexeddb-and-limits
>
> Regards,
>

Well, it is a moot point now. I disabled indexedDB after someone told
me that it is no longer needed for Adblock Plus.