Prev: Five free Windows utilities you should download
Next: Reprofiler
From: Gordon Darling on 6 May 2010 13:39
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:12:46 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote:

> H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in
> news:4be2cc8a$0$77537$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Does FireFox have an incognito mode?
>>
>> Of course

Just like the latest Opera.

> Of course it does



So, why did you ask?





--
ox·y·mo·ron
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are
combined, as in Microsoft Security, Microsoft Help and Microsoft Works.
From: H-Man on 6 May 2010 16:21
On Thu, 6 May 2010 16:12:46 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:

> H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in
> news:4be2cc8a$0$77537$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Does FireFox have an incognito mode?
>>
>> Of course
>>
>> http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2009/07/01/firefox-private-browsing-mode-he
>> lp-and-faq/
>>
>>
>
> Of course it does, so all of the hoopla about privacy and chrome is just
> that...hoopla. Corliss doesn't have a clue.

Unless I'm missing something, incognito mode in Chrome and Private mode in
FF do nothing for your privacy on the WAN side, it simply makes sure you
don't leave any paw prints on the system you're on. Google's privacy policy
is still cause for concern AFAIC.

--
HK
From: »Q« on 6 May 2010 18:38
In <news:4be324db$0$65828$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote:

> On Thu, 6 May 2010 16:12:46 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> > H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in
> > news:4be2cc8a$0$77537$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
> >
> >> On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does FireFox have an incognito mode?
> >>
> >> Of course
> >>
> >> http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2009/07/01/firefox-private-browsing-mode-he
> >> lp-and-faq/
> >
> > Of course it does, so all of the hoopla about privacy and chrome is
> > just that...hoopla. Corliss doesn't have a clue.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, incognito mode in Chrome and Private
> mode in FF do nothing for your privacy on the WAN side, it simply
> makes sure you don't leave any paw prints on the system you're on.
> Google's privacy policy is still cause for concern AFAIC.

That's true -- incognito and privacy modes don't have anything to do
with the very real concerns Chrome users should have. Bottoms
introduced incognito mode to the discussion as a red herring.

<http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php>




From: »Q« on 6 May 2010 20:01
In <news:Xns9D70BBC42C781bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250>,
Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote:

> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100506173832.62d70667(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php
>
> Chrome creates a unique ID through which a user can be theoretically
> identified.

That's a very good point, Bottoms. And, of course, "can be
theoretically identified" is the same thing as "can be identified by
Google if they want to".

Together with Google's onerous stances on privacy, that's reason enough
to avoid Chrome, IMO. Or you can install Chrome and then jump through
hoops to cripple its spyware aspects, hoping you don't overlook any of
them. Or you can just use another browser, such as Iron.

<http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php>
From: Craig on 6 May 2010 21:07
On 05/06/2010 06:21 AM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
> Craig<netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
....
>> <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php>
>>
>
> Does FireFox have an incognito mode?

Iron and icognito are not the same thing.

--
-Craig
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Five free Windows utilities you should download
Next: Reprofiler