[OU] Updating to 9.51 don't respect my preferences. RECTIFICATION > I was (part.) wrong!

[Ledgem]

Hey Mac,

I'm a big advocate of privacy as well, but I'm sorry to say that I think a number of your concerns and accusations are flat-out ridiculous. Opera is selling your user data? The average person doesn't understand or care what masking is. If masking means that they won't get websites telling them that their browser is unsupported and there's a global option to do so, then why wouldn't they just keep masking as Internet Explorer or Firefox? And if the majority of users are masking and it looks like there's nobody using Opera, then why should web developers try to support any browsers besides IE and Firefox? If no web developer is trying to support overall open standards, and not just IE and Firefox, then that's hard on Opera and nobody is going to use Opera. So yes, this setting may have to do with Opera's interest in marketshare, but it isn't quite as simple and "evil" as you're making it out to be.

If you're unhappy with Opera phoning home, get a more aggressive firewall and set your own rules. Have it tell you when Opera is connecting to strange servers on strange ports. For someone who is so privacy-conscious I'd expect that you're doing so with every program on your computer.

I think you have some good ideas, but you're presenting them in ways that are very off-putting, a little too extreme (the EFF and the UN are going to get involved, for example?), and quite accusative.

-David

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:49:42 -0400, macintoshzoom <macintoshzoom at lavabit.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew Gregory,
> Thanks again to answer.
>
> ISSUE 1: TO VE VERIFIED. The problem about opera not respecting my
> previous preferences, when started via command line $ opera -pd
> /pathtomyprevious9.27profilefolder(s) is a question to be re-tested with
> some time.
>
> ISSUE 2: I AM RIGHT.
> The problem about Opera driving for you when updating to where they
> likes (before your chance to verify/set-up your privacy/general
> settings) to the logging Opera firstrun site, it's to be resolved by
> Opera in a future, or it risk to be treated as fascist behavior.
>
> You mention "what happens about this", it's not your matter where or not
> I browse, It's my decision, not Opera ones.
> Even if it is to a NON-privacy-logging-profiling innocent Opera welcome
> site, clean httml with no plugins, cookies javascript or else (WHAT IT'S
> NOT ANYWAY), again , it's not your matter where or not I (all users)
> browse, It's my (all users) decision, not Opera one's.
> It's a question of principles, you can be honest or not, but no ambiguous.
>
> ISSUE 3: I WAS WRONG. I am ready to eat one of my socks, as promised.
> (but .. read)
>
> I have to RECTIFY myself about the Opera user-agent issue:
> Sorry all you guys, sorry Andy.
> IT WORKS as Opera announced. Opera is NOT DECEIVING users when setting
> this option. (thanks Opera for my brand new blue Sportster
> Harley-Davidson. hey Andy, yours is also blue? ... I am joking, promise!).
> I am quite happy about this, it was a nightmare for me to think about
> that Opera was betraying and faking users settings. I am supporting,
> promoting and defending (even if you may think I'm not for my postings
> here) Opera from a decade ago!
>
> YES Opera 9.51 passed (twice some hours ago) OKAY the browser/OS
> identification privacy tests from
> https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2
> and from
> https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
>
> .. although ONLY when user-agent network settings for a specific site
> is set as browser identification = "mask as".
>
> It is also successful masquerading the OS that is as important as to
> masquerade the browser identification to reduce hackers attacks and
> profiling.
>
> I WAS WRONG on that, I don't know how it happened. Need quick holidays.
> I was also playing with Opera 9.27 (this one I think it didn't offered
> the "mask as" option) and with your ua.ini proposals from your blog
> "Faking Browser IDs" http://scss.com.au/family/andrew/opera/browserids/
> , and I make some testing mistake somewhere.
>
> YOU WHERE RIGHT pointing that yes Opera was passing okay those tests
> when the browser specific site identification setting is set "as mask".
> Sorry.
>
> I am ready to eat one of my socks pair as I promised.
>
> BUT I will not eat my second socket, (yet) as Opera still fails
> respecting users privacy rights, as it doesn't give the option to set
> those masquerading browser identification settings as definitive
> (WHY?*), as YES Firefox and some other browsers allows: THIS IS A MUST.
>
> seen at
> http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread/4895e1f73da85140
> , Jun 26 2007, Rijk (Opera Software, QA etc...) says:
>> Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
>>> Complete masking is not available as a general ID setting, only in
> the siteprefs. This was a design decision.
> here some extra details:
> http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread/4895e1f73da85140
>
> WHY?*)= because it's against Opera financial interests. Money matters,
> user's privacy rights matters quite less or nothing.
>
> And Opera MUST warn users that changing (site specific) browser
> identifications (and other security/privacy tweakings) MUST BE DONE
> BEFORE you browse to the site !!!!
> (tools>preferences>advanced>content>manage-site-preferences).
> If you are in Nepal and you browse to a dissident (chinese gov
> surveilled) site , YOU ARE CAUGHT!. They will not give a chance to you
> for a second set of browsing with your brand new privacy settings.
> Even when you protect your IP (via tor or other anonymizer network), you
> turn off plugins, java, javascript, cookies, they can traceroute to you
> thanks to the browser/os identifications you leave on your browsing (if
> not properly masqueraded), used in combination of time-stamping and
> other techniques, if not now, probably after some surveillance time.
>
> THE mouse's right button menu and
> tools>quickpreferences>edit-site-preferences are silly shortcuts that
> can cause a fake feeling of privacy/security.
> USERS MUST SETUP THEIR SITE SPECIFIC privacy/security settings before
> browsing the site, not after.
> And as these are on Opera blank boxes settings menus, Opera must shown
> the proper syntax to avoid errors, (e.g
> http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/the-ongoing-revolution-in-nepal/ ,
> www.rsf.org) , or how to allow both https and http versions of the site...
> e.g. I tried and failed here to specify *, *.*, *.cn, and similar
> entries to the url
> tools>preferences>advanced>content>manage-site-preferences box, and
> failed without warnings.
>
> .. AND AGAIN this is a FAKE SECURITY/PRIVACY TWEAK:
> Most sites that are going to profile you contents hidden links (as https
> mostly) that goes to the profiling site, at a totally different (hidden,
> you can't pre-edit a specific privacy/security custom site-preferences
> here) domain site than you are going to browse.
>
> SO AGAIN, these masquerading browse and OS identification, today timidly
> offered by Opera as an only-per-site setting option, MUST BE settable as
> a GLOBAL OPTION, as FIREFOX AND OTHERS does.
>
> THIS DEFINITIVELY IS A MUST. If not, Opera will be very soon threated as
> fascist and privacy non respectful, even at risk to be denounced by
> privacy foundations and activists (as eff.org, etc) to the UN and local
> governments.
>
> Again, Opera dislikes this because they earn they money profiling on you
> and using google adsense and/or similar affiliates programs to get their
> (huge) income against your privacy rights.
> This kind of business model MUST END soon or later, its against human
> privacy rights, that are far go ahead and most important than any money
> Opera or others can earn.
>
> Andrew, you said:
>> Opera also "phones home" to check for
>> updates and compatibility improvements. This is a non-issue.
>
> WHAT the hell!. YES it is an YES-issue, NOBODY CAN CALL HOME WITHOUT
> USERS PERMISSIONS, this is a so hated backdoor, calling "home" where
> opera likes and where it can know about you as m much as they can.
> At least Opera may ask users if they want to enable this, as Firefox or
> others.
>
> Hi Andrew Gregory, googling a bit I found you have worked a lot about
> browsers tech, you edit several blogs and sites about that. Thanks to
> keep us informed, hopely my protests here (even if I was partially wrong
> on some of my arguments) may influence on you a bit to become a better
> bastion for human privacy rights defense and for better privacy/security
> focused browsers. You are much better positioned and respected to
> influence browsers software corporations as Opera than we mere mortals.
>
> But you look here more as an Opera/Google/BigMoney staff than an users
> rights defender ...
>
> Have fair holidays!
>
> Mac
>
> END.