70
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
70 points (79.7% liked)
Privacy
31281 readers
793 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
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
No. Vivaldi is proprietary.
Their CEO is not an asshole (at least not publicly) but they are still not committed to privacy. Vivaldi is a commodity browser, they include UI features and other usability features which are nice. But it isn't private, at all.
They have their own telemetry which includes an unique ID per installation and they basically have no protection against fingerprinting, a feature that Firefox (and Librewolf and Mullvad Browser) and Brave (do not use Brave) have and I consider essential.
From what I saw, it was fairly easy to turn that off in the settings and install uBlock Origin to cover the gaps in their tracker. I meant Vivaldi post-hardening, not "out of the box" with 0 settings or extensions changed.
that still doesn't solve the lack of anti fingerprint protection. uBlock Origin can't do that, it has to be built into the browser.
And the fact that it's proprietary and we do not have the source code.
Yes, they provide a "part" of their source code which is mostly chromium code which is freely available anyway. this is just a marketing practice, it has no real value because it is incomplete and can't be compiled and even if you tried to examine the available parts, they do not provide a git repository for easier examination. This is a huge reason for not trusting them. I wouldn't place my trust on a browser that obscures it's source that way and tries to compensate by publishing part of it. Their lack of transparency is worrisome.
There's also the fact of the chromium monopoly but other people got that part covered.