Update: Brave plans to address the issue in a future release. The VPN service will only be installed after a user purchases the VPN.
“Oh gee whiz did we do that?! Woopsie doodle! We’ll fix it someday!”
Furthermore, no data is sent to Brave from the VPN services. End
This might be true but the bigger problem is I have exactly zero reason to believe anything Brave says about the things they’re installing on people’s machines without consent. If you’re still using Brave at this point you’re a fool.
They’ll either evil or incompetent. Neither of which I want on my computer
when did people start hating on Brave? last I heard it was the best browser for privacy.
They’re Chromium based, which erodes any possible claim they could make to privacy.
Use Firefox instead. You can lock it down further than you can Brave and they don’t rely on Google.
Doesn’t Mozilla rely on Google for funding? Genuine question, as I though i read this else where on Lemmy
They might get some money from them but certainly not entirely. There’s an entire Mozilla Foundation.
I never used Brave, but I believe it was sometime after they started their ad-currency-whatever-thingy (I could of course be wrong).
Uh I’ll stick to Firefox thanks.
Even better, librewolf.
What on earth is that? And in what sense is it better than Firefox?
Thank you. You had the opportunity to explain why you use it and why you recommended it, and yet you had me google it myself like I could have done from the start. Now I know it’s a browser (like your comment implied) based on Firefox with additional privacy features. But I still don’t know why you recommended it. Oh well.
Stop using Brave, jfc. Please use Firefox, it’s not the best, but it’s better than this trash my goodness how many more scandals do people need to get rid of this crap?
Firefox is the best.
Yeah the first time I tried Brave it the a bunch of ads for their services - and asking about providing info to their partners - at me constantly. I don’t understand why people use that PoS
Just a reminder, one of the largest investors in Brave is a right-wing billionaire who runs a corporate espionage agency that contracts with the US Department of Defense to spy on people.
Source of the info?
Well, it’s about Peter Thiel, who also founded the Palantir surveillance technology company. As a source for his involvement with Brave, Wikipedia cites this TechCrunch article, which mentions funding from Thiel’s “Founders Fund”.
I’d rather criticize Brave for other reasons though, like being led by Brendan Eich or supporting crypto.
That’s the best reason, but somebody already mentioned it and I didn’t want to be redundant.
is it cool to hate crypto now? I thought the sort of people who use Lemmy would be all for the idea
Crypto is a scammers paradise.
The only chrome variant that doesn’t seem sketchy to install is chromium. The built from open source chromium. And that’s just because some sites barely function unless you’re using chrome’s rendering.
For everything else, Firefox.
What about Thorium? Thoughts?
I haven’t heard of it before today! Definitely going to check it out.
Would qtwebengine count, or is it a bit of a stretch?
I don’t know that I’d call that a chromium browser but I’ve only looked at its docs for 10 minutes. Hard to say where chromium integration begins and ends there without digging into the code. Seems like, at most, it’s using the web rendering engine from the chromium project. But it also seems to suggest it has its own modules for executing/rendering js/css/html.
Probably not included in the “should be avoided” category.
Now I’m curious what it’s used for.
I’m currently using it in a browser called Falkon. It’s not as big as Firefox or Chrome, but it is endorsed by KDE. Also, Apple’s Safari is using something similar.
Not at all.
Safari is using WebKit, which they based on KDE’s old KHTML engine, which is now discontinued.
Falkon uses qtwebengine which is Chromium’s web engine + integration with QT user interface.
A Linux browser that uses WebKit (like Safari) is GNOME Web.
Checkmate, Brave shills.
Like built-in crypto shenanigans weren’t enough.
tbf the BAT thing is cool
I used to be a Brave user. I loved it. It worked well, it blocked ads without me asking, whatever. Then Google said they’re gonna bake ad blocker blocking into the API and, knowing Brave was Chromium based, I went back to Mozilla after like 100 years.
Two observations:
-
I was kinda deluded
-
Mozilla got their shit together, Firefox is as awesome again, by comparison, as it was when they unseated Internet Explorer.
-
Just a reminder, Brave was using people’s likenesses to solicit donations without their consent, and without necessarily give those people the donations.
deleted by creator
If you want to poke around, look up “Tom Scott and Brave”.
https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/spotlight/famous-youtuber-tom-scott-frustrated-with-brave/
Vivaldi is a better brave. You get built in ad blocking and tracking prevention along with not having built in crypto
And mouse gestures! Configurable tab stacking! Workspaces! Notes and pinned tabs! Tab tiling! Web apps in the sidebar! I love Vivaldi.
deleted by creator
The amount of people I see shilling for Brave like it’s God’s gift to privacy is frankly kind of disturbing given how many issues they’ve had with privacy
the brave experience was less than ideal for me, the brave search is unusable, i switched back to firefox, which i had moved to from chrome
also, related, but a side note, word to the wise, never ever ever use a free vpn ever, someones gotta foot the bill for the exit server bandwidth, and either they’re keeping logs or they’re not keeping logs, but you’ll never know, and you won’t know when they sell their settup to the next guy. always use a major vpn service who’s audited and shown proof they’re not keeping logs, they’re in the business of secure and private vpn service. free vpns like what brave are offering are not in that business, and server, rack space, bandwidth costs actual money
deleted by creator
Software installs services to make its features operate, including optional default off ones. More news at 10.
Either it does it at install time, or when you try to turn on the VPN after subscribing to it, it pops an UAC prompt to finish installing optional components. That’s standard practice, and it’s good for security because it means they can flag the browser itself as not capable of elevating privileges. They’re not going to put a gaping security hole in their software so that idiots don’t write articles about “installing things without your concent”. You already consented to installing Brave, you can’t be surprised Brave is installed.
As long as it deletes them when you uninstall, this is a complete non-issue.
I guess it depends on how much you trust a company (both now and in the future) to do something they shouldn’t with this kind of setup, whether on purpose or though incompetence.
Personally, I don’t software silently installing unrelated services to my machine just in case the company decides they want to have it running on my machine in the future.
It is an advertised feature though. It can and will use those services if you enable them.
Should it also not come with the binaries for the VPN feature at all? That has downsides: maybe you’re on a laptop trying to bypass a network block that also blocks the download of the VPN software but the VPN would work.
So if it’s to come with the binaries, why can’t it install the service too, that defaults to off and manual launch? On Linux that’d be a systemd unit, on Windows it’s probably an API call of some sort but they basically contain the same information: some metadata, an executable and the privileges to launch it as.
I’d never seen a Linux user complain about <1kb systemd unit file being installed that’s disabled by default and only started on demand when the feature is requested as part of a package they install. It just is and doesn’t hurt anyone. Don’t want it, don’t use it.
When I download software, I expect all its built-in features to be installed and usable even if I don’t use them, nor want them. It’s part of the package.
It’s kind of borderline because the VPN really could and should be a separate product entirely, I don’t want to launch a browser just to then on a VPN. But they made it a built-in feature that’s advertised as such, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Especially given its proprietary software. If you’re that privacy and security conscious, why are you using proprietary software and not Firefox or Chromium or whatever the latest flavor of degoogled Chromium fork du jour is. The service is nothing compared to all the other crap they could be running in the browser completely hidden from you. That service is super transparent and upfront, if they wanted to hide it they could easily hide it. If you really don’t want it to run, you can even set it to disabled entirely, and Brave won’t even be able to start it.
If you’re that paranoid, you really should be running Linux or at least avoid as much closed source software as possible.
Yeah I mean there’s a lot wrong with brave but this is like getting mad at software for installing an autoupdate service
The usual anti-Brave hate wagon, with FUD and pitchforks. They’re already working on it:
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/33726
VPN is a paid service, it doesn’t connect to anywhere if one doesn’t pay. This is just a service installed just in case. And complaining about this while using Windows , the OS with unavoidable telemetry, spyware and ads is just laughable.
Mozilla did far worse “mistakes” over the time (Pocket , Cliqz, Mr. Robot, deal with the worst privacy offenders on the Earth such as Google Facebook, Amazon, CEO pay rise while firing devs and losing market share, while begging for donations… and so on) but they somehow always get a free pass, with people swallowing Mozilla’s corpo PR every single time.
Mozilla have some immunity because they do the hard work and actually develop a browser, while for Brave everything that matters is leeched from Google’s Chromium.
Wow…a “FUD” user in the wild.
Wow, a Mozilla shill in the wild.
