What is Digg?52 Comments
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32God, google and firefox get a room!
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Wrong, I'll still nead a google toolbar, becouse I can't spell aything.
- chrisgeleven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Firefox 2 will have spell checking as well.
- WillyWonka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Google employees a few of the best Firefox programmers. There is a reason their stuff is getting in.
- Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16They had a room, but it's too full of cash to use now.
- pahajoki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11this is old news. it's has already been part of alpha for long time
- TheBaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15But Firefox 2 has in built spell-checking too.
- dbug, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Why did google have to put their greasy fingers in the Firefox-project anyway?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Like most entities it'll get fatter as it gets older. :)
- MellerTime, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Ahh, and so it begins... The money comes in, and all the morals go out... At least it's open source, so in 5 years someone will fork it and strip out everything done in the last 5 years and restore us to a true hard core browser that's... well... much like what we have now.
I say leave it out and give me an extension I can load or unload!
*starts looking around for the Google goones to show up* - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Erm.. This means that Google now has your email, your calendar, your feeds, your search history, and if you use firefox, then every page you have ever visited:
1. You go to website
2. Firefox automatically queries google with website - from your IP, port, etc, to check if it's a phishing site.
At this point, Google has your IP & port. Sure, that's arguably useless information.. Unless you happen to.. you know:
. Go to google.com/ig or log into the personalised google.com
. Go to gmail.com or use the POP access facility (i.e. Gmail tray)
. Go to calendar.google.com, reader.google.com, or any other google bits.
At which point it becomes personally identifiable, adsensable material. Don't be fooled by "don't be evil". They now know everything about you, they're an American corporation that needs to satisfy their shareholders, and they only have one revenue stream. Guess what happens next? - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Old news, wasn't there a "feature review" of Firefox 2 a couple of days ago? It also had screenshots, unlike this article.
- ericdfields, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7really? deer park was pretty zippy on my machine, just a bit too buggy for my tastes. anyone else have an opinion on firefox's weight in the future?
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's going to be optional, but yes you can also check this without sending the URLs of everysite you visit by simply sending the hash of the url. Theoretically, Google could have a hash of every URL on the net, so the other option would be for google to simply send you a database that is little more than a whole bunch of md5 or sha1 sums. If the hash of your current URL is in that file somewhere, then it can be marked as suspicious. It would be a big file, but with incremental updates to it once a week or so, I think it would be manageable, and no entity would ever know where you browse.
- rvalles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm hoping for it to be protecting our privacy from google, that is, I hope it doesn't send them all the URLs we visit.
- coolfrood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There is no way for an anti-phishing technology to work other than phoning back home to Google. It's amazing how people went up in arms against Google when they came out with their "Web Accelerator." That was something that you had to download and install. This comes built into your browser and is enabled by default. Yet, no one seems to care all that much.
- ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The reason the extensionable model is great is I can decide when to prioritize memory use over features and vice versa. Integrated features (like this one) piss all over that philosophy.
I don't need phishing protection, and I suspect most don't. People either use safe practices to protect their data or they don't. Those that use safe practices don't need this, and those that don't use safe practices can't be helped.
Attempts to force safe practices on users always fail, because safe practices involve being slightly more skeptical than the average user. - djg38, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It doesn't have to connect to Google and pass on the URLs you're visiting.
"Safe Browsing inspects a visited site against a regularly updated list of known phishing sites. The list of phishing sites may be downloaded automatically within the browser or can optionally be checked against Google's online list of known miscreants." - barnett25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I will still need it because the internet is useless to me without the highlight feature for searches. Yeah, search engines are great, but what good does it do to find a page with something you are looking for in seconds, if it takes you 5 minutes to find the content on the page?
- goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Omg this is so funny, i never knew there were anti google fanboys. Goddamn, the users on this site are pathetic(some of them, not all).
And it seems that no matter what company is making something, there will be little ***** bickering about how each company is bad. Get over it. I think its pretty kool that google has supported mozilla. Lets just hope the company wont turn into an evil one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm eagerly anticipating the full release of Firefox 2. I don't use the Google Toolbar now but after F2 comes out I won't ever need to.
- yotta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The only problem is that my anti-virus sees some of the questionable urls as trojan signatures.
- MellerTime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What anti-virus, out of curiosity?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But i thought people were paranoid about their privacy? They complain about the NSA but not about Google's power?
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those anti-google "fanboys" (the correct term would be trolls) are MS fanboys.
- int19h, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look, if the technology works, then great. If people feel surveilled, it should be disabled by default. It's still open source, no stress. :)
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No kidding. That's how it works. You put all the pieces together and you've got a complete profile of a person, his friends, connections, business interests, political affiliations, etc. If you're doing it just for the $$$, you can then bombard that person with targeted advertising.
I wouldn't worry to much about this if you're no one, just another faceless porn downloader and part-time pirate. But if you plan on becoming someone important, or wealthy, you might want to keep your tracks clean. You never know when something can come back to haunt you. - natmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's like two clicks to disable it. Yes, you could just have this as an extension - but who would install it? Most of the people installing extensions know how to avoid phishing schemes anyway. It's important to include this feature to protect the average computer user.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope this anti-phishing feature will be optional.
- KriTenKs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The firefox dev team asked google if they could use the anti-phishing code, not the other way round. Anyway, its pretty obvious that your guys are anti-firefox. Why wouldnt any real firefox fanboy like that Mozilla finally has good partners that actually help out. Google IS part of the new equation that has made firefox so much more succesful than the previous Mozilla suite.
- gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5what? you didn't know there were anti-Google fanboys, where the hell have you been living? in the Apple Fanboy hut?
- shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you check the option to send the data to google, is it still sent unencrypted?
- forteller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Old news, wasn't there a "feature review" of Firefox 2 a couple of days ago? It also had screenshots, unlike this article."
It's much older than that. I submitted this to Digg 86 days ago! :)
http://digg.com/software/Firefox_is_integrating_Googles_Safe_Browsing_anti-phishing_extension
"...but what good does it do to find a page with something you are looking for in seconds, if it takes you 5 minutes to find the content on the page?"
Well, you could just enable the search-while-you-type feature (Options -> Advanced). Then all you have to do is type your search word again, and Firefox will show you where it is on the page. It takes 2 seconds! - gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3when Firefox doesn't side with Google and do everything google asks, its Riding the bear as Balmer says.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If it's optional, then this is great. Those that don't mind Google tracking their activity can use it, the rest of us can avoid the lag and surf without it.
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Why did google have to put their greasy fingers in the Firefox-project anyway?"
better that they use an existing, excellent browser than try to develop their own. just ask sun, novell, and oracle about creating a linux distro vs. buying/supporting an existing distro. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"more bloat..."
Then use Dillo, links, lynx, w3m, etc. if you really want to go minimal. - Hidekatsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3 Here's my take on the article as well as all the comments:
For one thing...Google and Firefox teaming up? It's already happened, just look around. If you had a problem with Google and Firefox you should have made your complaint back when Firefox 1.0 came out.
Another thing... since when is Google the new Microsoft? Google has not broken their "Don't be Evil" promise. Google has stayed true to it's goal from the very beginning. The goal is to "make all the world's information easily accessible to the world". If you think that's violating your privacy, fine, you can go into your preferences and turn it off. Knowing Google, they'll probably ask you when you install Firefox or update it anyway.
Google's actions may be suspicious, but their giving you a choice. - thinksInCode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When will people stop spelling Firefox with the second F capitalized? It's not called FireFox, it's simply Firefox. Check their FAQ, it even says it there.
- honkybong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't know if Google toolbar offers you anything useful or else unavailable. However, all I know is that the last thing I would need is any more toolbars. 5 bars (menus-tools-address-search, bookmarks, tabs, status-bar and some fresh articles in rss ticker) are well enough
- djg38, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Firefox is open source, right? So if it were doing that, we'd know about it.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2hmmm...FireFox and Google combine and become more bloated....but where are all the complainers of bloated software?!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So use Linux online and you won't need an antivirus program.
- pigdart, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1BTW no stress means you are clinically deceased.
- gincarnated, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4So how long until we get a google browser? I'm looking forward to it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2But... I only have 4 gigs of RAM!
- vramdal, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5God, Google and Firefox? A threesome?
- Mysk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2hm, once this comes out then we can probably say good bye to the $1 per Firefox download. Bummer.
- lunchtickets, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Teh Googlie!!
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Knead.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is