No to Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://notochrome.org <comment><USER2> Interesting, I just moved back to Firefox after many years of using Chrome.

I have to admit, it has gotten a lot faster recently, Firefox sync is working very well, and the Firefox Android app is a pleasure to use (being able to install uBlock origin is a huge plus).

Anything else I missed on Chrome was easily solved by an addon, or a small tweak on userChrome.css (customizing the browser interface by overriding its CSS is amazing btw).

<comment><USER3> I can't solve highlighting search results in the scroll bar, and apparently I search a surprising amount and am absolutely crippled without scroll bar highlighting, so I'll stick to Chrome until I can't (e.g. when content blocking is crippled).

<comment><USER4> >> ... highlighting search results in the scroll bar...

This. I find any browser that doesn't do that to be unusable. The alternative, in long documents or source code, is to blindly hit NEXT and visit all locations where a search term is found rather than scrolling quickly to see the different context regions.

I tried a plug-in or two but they were not nearly as functional as the native Chrome experience.

<comment><USER3> Glad I'm not insane, or not the only one insane. Whenever I read one of these highly-voted "I switched to Firefox and nothing's degraded" post I wonder if I'm the only one searching on web pages, or if I'm the only one whose productivity is massively boosted by knowing where search results are located and how they are clustered at a glance. But then, modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it is important to a non-negligible audience.

<comment><USER5> > modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it is > important to a non-negligible audience

Sorry, but as far as the modern browsers are concerned, we coders are a negligible market to cater for. The number of non-coder browser-users is orders magnitude higher than the number of coders.

<comment><USER3> Not saying coders are a non-negligible audience (although I'd say coders _are_ a non-negligible segment of Firefox user base). My assumption is that the percentage of coders who value scroll bar highlighting is comparable to the percentage of those among all web users who read and search web pages of nontrivial length, since there's hardly anything about this feature that's specifically beneficial to coding.

This and the fact that I heard all the "switched to Firefox and nothing's degraded" comments from coders, and upvoted by coders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even if you have no issue with Google, this is still a good idea to encourage competition. Honestly, Chrome is not as good as it used to be anyway. For me, Google Maps and Waze are the hardest things to kick. And YouTube...

<comment><USER7> OpenStreetMap had solid data, but my periodic attempts at finding a good app haven't been successful.

<comment> maze-le Have you tried OSMand ([https://osmand.net/](https://osmand.net/)). It is not very pretty, but I definitly love the "offline" feature and bicycle maps.

<comment><USER8> You an combine with brouter to get awesome elevation0-respecting foot and bike routes. This works all fully offline, btw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video).

I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode.

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872)

<comment><USER10> The comments from firstname.lastname@example.com in this bug report are scary.

"We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..."

Why so much resistance?

<comment><USER11> > most users don't care about it anyway

Our designer was pissed off when we discovered this bug, which explained why Chrome was the only program that displayed RGB values differently from all the others (not just browsers). She'd been careful about standardizing and tweaking colors we already used to work better for people with colorblindness, much of which was thrown out the window on Chrome. Not to mention issues matching the PNGs and SVGs she created for the site.

Quick edit:

> Why so much resistance?

Comment 34:

> Chromium developers have previously stated this won't be supported for > reasons mentioned in this old post.

> [https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color- > spaces/](https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/)

From that link (posted in 2006):

> The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not > control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify > colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those > colors to match. Because Flash's drawing isn't correcting to sRGB, if we did > it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These > mismatches look far worse than if we just don't correct at all.

Isn't Flash gone from Chrom(ium) now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think it makes much sense to mix it all up.

You don't like google? Well don't use it. And yes, adblocking makes sense to avoid googleads.

But the browser is something different. And to avoid the googleintegration of chrome but like the browser like me (mostly for dev tools) just use chromium.

Also, some remarks on the site makes it less trustworthy

"Midori includes private browsing which is said to be "totally anonymous" and fast."

No it is not. Neither totally anonymous nor very fast. Quite sluggish for me.

</comment><comment><USER13> They really miss an opportunity to say WHY anywhere on the landing page, instead going straight to: "Chrome is bad. Here's some alternatives."

<comment><USER14> They don't say Chrome itself is bad, and therefore do not seek to explain it. The page is less a technical break down and more a call to action ala activism. Chrome itself isn't an issue, it's one of many tentacles, and one of the bigger ones, leading back to Google.

<comment><USER15> If you're arguing for something you need the full argument. Not everyone is starting with the assumption that Google is bad.

I know Google isn't a completely benign force in the universe but I haven't been properly convinced I should boycott them.

<comment><USER14> > If you're arguing for something you need the full argument.

No you don't. In fact, for many rhetorically primed things, such as opposition to Google, and especially in the realm of activism, explaining over and over why you're doing a thing is often not done because it's not necessary.

Every environmental protest doesn't need to include explanations of the Exxon Valdez and BP's Deepwater Horizon. Once things reach a certain level of cultural "it is known" explaining over and over is not required. If you're attending a protest, you know about these things. If you don't, others at the protest will tell you. If you do and aren't convinced, they aren't interested in reaching you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm quite satisfied with my move away from google products. Moved from gmail to protonmail. Chrome to firefox and search to ddg. Ddg isn't perfect though and I find myself using !g tag more often than I'd like.

<comment><USER17> Try !s instead -- same results as google (apparently) but via startpage which supposedly doesn't track..

I don't really understand how startpage is able to operate such a service, I assume it's maybe because if google started trying to stop them it would be rather hypocritical?

<comment><USER18> Starpage is now owned by an advertising company. I wouldn't rely on them not tracking me.

<comment><USER19> I have also hopped to Qwant / DDG for their proxied Bing search.

Keeping that in mind, doing a !s bang is probably better privacy-wise (bonus - you get the same results) vs a !g bang, even if it is no longer as good as it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been a Google engineer for ~ 10 years. Reading things like their reasoning are always so painful to me as an employee:

> Google will do everything it can to ensure its ability to extract > information about you [...] even without your consent and sometimes in > direct opposition to existing national and international laws.

... and...

> Google is an information colonialist who want to seize all information both > online and in real life – irrespective of who should have the right to > access it"

Then I have to turn around and try to justify that I need obfuscated aggregated data about how our users use my product to determine what feature to work on.

Or I have to spend half a day going through user data sensitivity training about fictional consumer footwear. Again. Because I have to do it quarterly, even though the content doesn't change.

Or I write up a design doc where more than half of it is explaining how collecting what users could actually see on a page isn't PII, and it's being aggregated anyway, and we don't capture, target, or in any way interact with users under 13, and that the content team really does need this data because they use it to decide what to serve to the user next time so that the user feels like the experience is new and fresh and more interesting, and that if we see fewer then {x} unique users over a given period of time we'll literally delete the data to make sure that nobody can combine it to build any sort of PII profile, despite the fact that the entire table's data retention is {y} months anyway.

I get that it feels like Google sucks all this data in. And this data could be put together in various ways. And it's big and scary and opaque. And nobody outside knows what is ___really_ __happening with this data, regardless of what the TOS says. But I can 't imagine any level of transparency that would satisfy people. Either it's too detailed and we get accused of burying the data in legalese, or it's too thin and we get accused of being purposefully vague.

Rant over. I have a design doc to write.

</comment><comment><USER21> Not really well argued (not at all actually) for a non-techie user who at most does email, youtube, work and shopping...

They are probably 99%.

The site feels like it's authored with a tin-foil hat on.

<comment><USER22> I agree with this.

While I agree with the rhetoric of this site, this site really is just empty rhetoric.

The "why" on this site is, in my opinion, a terrible, ineffective, dogmatic argument. I agree with the dogma, but I'm not the one that needs convincing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Their browsers website ([https://notochrome.org/find-a-new- browser/](https://notochrome.org/find-a-new-browser/)) makes it somewhat difficult to understand that Firefox is also available as an option on macOS and iOS. Plus it has a link to Midori that looks like it's been taken over by scam.

<comment><USER24> The midori thing is weird... the page appears to be unfinished, checking wayback archive shows that the whole project went through a rough patch and is likely on life support if even alive anymore. for a while the homepage was regular wordpress blog feed. sometime at the start of this year they updated it to its current state. They also claim to have merged with the Astian Foundation, but that website also appears unfinished, with lorem ipsum throughout and a gmail email address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If the _only_ reason to not use Chrome is Google, then you are in luck because Chromium is open source software with a permissive license. There are several libre forks of it, the best-maintained one being Brave. Nightly builds of plain Chromium are available from googlesource. You could also get community builds of Chromium from many package managers. You would only have to rely on Google for the extensions store, but that's not any worse than Firefox's case because there is only one source for Mozilla addons as well.

So for me to switch from Chromium to Firefox would require an argument on technical or UX merits, and so far Firefox is currently worse across the board.

[https://arewefastyet.com/](https://arewefastyet.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Chrome/ium is a wonderful web development environment. Can't see myself moving away from it any time soon.

<comment><USER27> Firefox DevTools member here. If you have tried them recently, I'd love your feedback on what's blocking you.

<comment><USER28> not op - 1 click clear storage/site data button.

Do any of the firefox devs use chrome dev tools to see what's missing in FF/nice to have?

<comment><USER29> Agree with this. Clearing site data is more verbose than it needs to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There is also the degoogle subreddit: [https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Is Chrome a bad browser? I feel that unlike IE6 vs Firefox, Chrome is not inferior to the competition and in fact moves faster, not slower towards innovation.

<comment><USER32> Chrome is technically excellent software. This is all about how the company Google conducts its business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Less Google, more internet. Simple as that

<comment><USER34> If by "internet" you mean the more traditional thought of internet with all of its __decentralized __goodness (and services and such), then YES 1000 times!!

<comment><USER33> This is exactly what i think of. Internet can become do much more than it is now

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Safari is my default browser and it works for me, along with DDG.

I may switch to Firefox at some point, but currently there's a long standing bug that breaks audio with multi-channel audio interfaces (FF does not adhere to the mac system output channel settings and instead defaults to channels 1-2)

The only site I need chrome to use is google meet, naturally. Which, if you've turned on automatic closed captioning and seen it perform speech-to-text with user attribution in real time, is horrifying by itself.

<comment><USER36> Do Apple/Safari offer great privacy?

<comment><USER35> Apple's marketing team says yes [https://www.apple.com/privacy/](https://www.apple.com/privacy/)

Jokes aside it's not perfect and there are different shades of "great" depending on what that means to you personally. But I do trust Apple over Google since their business model is not so aligned with mass scale data collection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Losing Chrome doesn't necessarily stop you being tracked. If you make a vacuum it will be filled by someone else. I am not suggesting apathy but opting out just makes holes for someone else to fill. And as we have seen in the past competition is great but it quickly gets amalgamated behind the scenes, just look at the alcohol industry. All those brands look like healthy competition, but it's largely one parent company.

You can imagine that a young Instagram or What's App could have been on the safe list of alternate social platforms, but Facebook bought them both. Firefox isn't impervious to a change of management and ownership 5-10 years down the line.

So what you are left with is using esoteric applications and social spaces that no one really cares about. That's analogous to living off the grid. It just isn't really suitable to the majority of people and as such it isn't a solution at all.

The problem isn't Chrome or Google per se, it's technology. We should be pressuring the big guns to conform to our needs, not opting out and abandoning the people who benefit from large social platforms and convenient, well supported applications.

<comment><USER38> The logic is simpler.

The makers of Firefox (and apparently Safari) do have an incentive to keep your privacy.

The makers of Chrome have an incentive to keep you tracked.

So it's _not_ the technology, it's business models. (Basically it's the rude awakening to TANSTAAFL.)

<comment><USER37> What I am hearing is it's not right/fair/moral for businesses to compete with personal data as their primary asset. The proposed solution is for a small subsect of the technical elite to walk away. That really, really does not solve anything except an individual's problem.

The solution is to put pressure on legislators to prevent companies like Google and Facebook trading your data to fund their business. This could result in Google/Facebook charging for their services, and maybe that's a really good thing. People would have to think about how much social media means to them and not ignore the hidden cost of their privacy.

<comment><USER38> If you give your data to them, it's legitimate for them to use the data. You literally signed away your rights when accepted their ToS.

I would go for clearer definitions of what personal data are, several most important kinds of it. Maybe a regulation should require that ToS clearly state how these data are going to be collected, accessed, and stored. Much like with medical or financial records.

Then most users would just make more informed decisions, and that might also inform their online behavior and expectations.

People are mostly not dumb, they just need clear information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Contributing the diversity of the web is an important action that all of us should be committed to.

Read Zeldman's "Browser diversity starts with us." [http://www.zeldman.com/2018/12/07/browser-diversity- starts-w...](http://www.zeldman.com/2018/12/07/browser-diversity-starts-with- us/)

<comment><USER40> The battle is already lost. There's really only two serious options today for browser engines, which is even fewer than there are for OSs! And the reason is the same: it is far too complicated to create new implementations of either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is there anyway to do multiple profiles on iOS firefox or any non-chrome browsers? That is one feature I will miss from Chrome on iOS.

And honestly, the profile manager on Firefox is annoying, since you have to start from command line to access and it can't run multiple instances/profiles in parallel.

<comment><USER42> The profile manager is annoying, but at least for me, Containers do about 95% of what I used profiles for, and they are much more manageable: you can right- click a link and use "Open in new container".

<comment><USER41> I guess I want to have an existing login session, like FFUser1 with its bookmarks cookies etc, and then another FFUser2 with seperate bookmarks, etc -- containers are transient correct, so I would have to login each time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I still use Chromium (and Iridium, a derivative that hopefully doesn't send info to Google), specifically on OpenBSD, for reasons summarized here (lower chance of privilege escalation, limiting bad behavior): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21566041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21566041)

(...and discussed further in the parents of the above link, like: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21559122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21559122) or the full recent related discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21557309](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21557309) ).

Given which, I might switch to Firefox for _some_ uses after the next OpenBSD release where it will have pledlge/unveil support (preventing it from accessing the computer beyond config-specified limits).

Edit: One thing I wish I knew about firefox is a way, without extensions/add- ons, to limit which sites can use javascript/images/etc., and/or to open multiple config tabs at once to quickly turn those on by exception for occasional specific sites, as I do with chrome. Exception lists, even better. This was discussed a little bit at those above links.

<comment><USER29> > to limit which sites can use javascript/images/etc

The new privacy tools allow you to tune this from the url bar, but I think it only applies to cookies, javascript and trackers.

> and/or to open multiple config tabs at once

yeah that's the sticky part. It only allows one open config tab unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I love Firefox and moved back from Chrome in 2018. But, occasionally there are websites that just don't work in Firefox and work in Chrome/Safari. For example, go to [https://my.t-mobile.com](https://my.t-mobile.com) And I will see:

502 Bad Gateway The server returned an invalid or incomplete response.

Firefox Web Console reports an error: "The character encoding of the HTML document was not declared. The document will render with garbled text in some browser configurations if the document contains characters from outside the US-ASCII range. The character encoding of the page must be declared in the document or in the transfer protocol."

I'm not sure at this point what the issue could be, and why it works for Chrome/Safari. I don't have any extensions that could alter the requests or responses (i.e https everywhere, CORS, etc...)

</comment><comment><USER45> I work with chromium using chromes debug protocol (CDP) to do automation. You'd be suprised how much of the browser your dealing with as a facade- they sell things like a headless browser that don't oblige by the most basic of requests given to the browser e.g hide all the scrollbars that in addition to using double the resources and taking twice as long to preform any operations I tell you that thing looks shiny on the surface but their is nothing their I think the work should be done on building and making webkit, blink and gecko better as the referece implementations before we try and yet again make something shiny that can barely do the job it should be

<comment><USER45> also no support for plugins web interfaces on chrome headless meaning every time you want to test a plugin you have to bring up a virtual X11 server to deal with it

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I only keep a Chrome browser around to access Google properties like Google Maps or Gmail which are painfully slow in Firefox. It feels like old IE days where there are sites that only really work in 1 browser.

</comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know the Firefox dev tools equivalent of Chrome dev tools "JavaScript contexts" drop down menu? I'm not sure how to describe it, but here are two screenshots from a tutorial where I saw it:

1\. With mouse hovering over the drop down menu showing the displayed tool tip

[https://imgur.com/a/16lCRWg](https://imgur.com/a/16lCRWg)

2\. With clicked on drop down menu showing the "javascript contexts"

[https://imgur.com/a/SPZuvWr](https://imgur.com/a/SPZuvWr)

<comment><USER27> DevTools member here: We have a more powerful target switching (hidden) in the toolbar but are also working to better expose JS context switching early next year.

Debugger's new threads panel also solves this partially when you pause in a thread.

Are your use cases extensions, workers or iframes?

<comment><USER47> Thanks for all of your team's work! It's a critical tool that I love and use often.

My use case is more of, I saw something in the chrome tools that I didn't recognize from FF. I don't do much js debugging beyond console logging. But I'm starting a PWA project and will be making a service worker, so sounds like this functionality might be relevant.

ps - enjoyed this Changelog podcast w/ Jason Laster of the FF DevTools team, [https://changelog.com/podcast/247](https://changelog.com/podcast/247).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > We can no longer pretend that Google is a positive force in the world.

It's amazing how Google has gone from a "do no evil", where everyone celebrated every new thing Google did to "it is the evil"

Hard to win that brand back once it's tainted. May be the whole alphabet move was so Google's brand wouldn't taint it's other brands. But by association, Waymo is Google-ish and they'll be seen as invading on privacy just like its sibling companies.

</comment><comment><USER49> Switching to Brave has worked out great for me. All of my extensions work, browsing experience is almost exactly the same, etc. I love the built-in privacy features (Tor is a keyboard shortcut away!). The one issue that I've run into is that the built-in ad blocker is a little aggressive sometimes to the point where it breaks page functionality. At those times, I just deactivate it for that page and go about my business.

<comment><USER50> Brave is still based on chromium/blink. You might get more privacy, but you're still supporting the one monopoly of the web, Google deciding over all the web standards going forward. That is the real bad thing

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I want to try another browser too. I am not much comfortable with Safari. Can someone compare Brave browser with firefox? Are there any other better alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER52> Also remember that many "other" browsers are also based on Chrome or just customized Chrome versions. Think Opera, Brave, Vivaldi etc.

</comment><comment><USER53> The one thing Chrome has which makes it 1000x better for me is the ability to search a site in the url bar itself by entering the url and pressing tab (?). For example I've used it on alternativeto.net a lot. I personally do use Firefox more anyway but it makes Chrome so easy when I do use it.

</comment><comment><USER54> Nice black and white design.

I would remove the light grey bars behind the logos.

Clicking on the images at the bottom should open the respective website instead of the image.

The "why" page should mention amp. Instead of ranking websites by user friendlyness, via boosting amp they rank them by affiliation with Google. I think that is the most evil thing Google did so far.

<comment><USER55> As long as we're providing website critiques:

* "Google want to automate us" should be "Google wants to automate us"

* They should consider making the page about why not to use chrome in particular more discoverable from the main page

* "Google have been accused of ensuring other Google products don't work on Chrome" should be "Google have been accused of ensuring other Google products only work on Chrome"

* They block Google search from indexing the page, but they _also_ block all other crawlers. Why not let DuckDuckBot through?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> >Error establishing a database connection

</comment><comment><USER57> One of the things I like about google chrome is the omnibar: i can search within a website directly from the bar. For example, I can type amazon.com<TAB> and then I can directly search. This also works for many of my company's internal websites. Can firefox do that?

<comment><USER58> Not sure what's built in, but you can definitely make it do that by right- clicking on a search box and making a shortcut. I have 'wp' for wikipedia, 'yt' for youtube, etc.

<comment><USER59> Firefox's keywords are really nice in general. If you bookmark a URL, replace a parameter in the URL with %s and assign the bookmark a keyword, you can use the keyword with an argument to replace the parameter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Does anyone use the Brave browser? I started a few days ago and it's a pretty interesting idea.

<comment><USER61> Search the page and you'll find several mentions of Brave.

What I want to know is why someone would pick Brave instead of the Epic Privacy Browser...

... though personally, I think it's far better to support Firefox as it's now the only viable alternative browser that isn't based on Chrome.

Chrome is now so dominant that people can just ignore open web standards and develop for Chrome instead. This is a Bad Thing.

<comment><USER62> I checked out Epics page, it says it is always in "private browsing mode."

So you never stay logged into anything? Private browsing has a purpose, but I can't imagine being stuck always private browsing. That sounds painful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Google is masking website content into their content. We need to make a move before its too late

<comment><USER64> How?

<comment><USER65> They scrape top results and show it directly in a box (think wikipedia, imdb, lyric engines etc.) thus discouraging users from actually clicking the link.

Personally, I think it's nice to have the content instantly available and not having to go to a website for it but I can see how for content producers this means wrapping their websites and making money out of their content.

<comment><USER18> Wasn't that something their search copied from ddg?

<comment><USER61> No. Google's OneBox, Ask's Smart Answers, Microsoft's Instant Answers, and Yahoo Shortcuts all existed at least two years before DDG was even founded in 2008.

Also, DDG's "Instant Answers are open source and are maintained on GitHub, where anyone can build or work on them". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo)

It's not the same sort of massive web-scraping click-stealing operation as Google's OneBox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Jumped from Chrome about six months ago and overall quite impressed with Firefox. My only complaint is that I can't seem to shake my preference for the rounded tabs and UI of Chrome...

</comment><comment><USER67> Who is behind this website?

<comment><USER68> > No to Chrome is an alliance led by Berlin based Eduardo Smith and UK based > James Mullarkey.

<comment><USER67> Berlin based? Where's the impressum then?

<comment><USER69> Isn't that only required for a commercial website?

<comment> maze-le Technically yes, but... In front of several german courts simple web blogs and other (definitely) non-commercial projects have lost their cases against "competitors" (usually trigger happy shyster lawyers that see a quick way to make easy money). The wording of the law states that every publication platfrom that operates "Geschäftsmäßig" (like a business) is liable to have an imprint. The courts have defined the word "Geschäftsmäßig" as meaning regularly -- so it is only important how regularly you post, not if you make money with it or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Can anyone recommend a web-based, privacy respecting alternative to Google Docs/Sheets? It's the one part of Google products I haven't found a good replacement for.

<comment><USER71> I wish LibreOffice had a calendar with an API, accessible from Calc. The only thing keeping my Google account open is a sheets/calender script that does some financial forecasting based on my calendar entries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I like to think I'm such a trendsetter. The truth is I started using Firefox before Chrome ever existed and was too lazy to ever switch.

</comment><comment><USER73> Sold my soul to google long time ago but i'll join this crowd is that manifest 3 shit happens.

</comment><comment><USER74> Is it better to push people to firefox and safari or include Opera and Edge as well so we don't get another defacto standard?

<comment><USER75> You should definitely not be pushing anyone to Safari. Apple's monopoly on browser engines on iOS gives them veto power on all web standards since iOS uses have no alternate browser engines (like Firefox)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> It would be nice to have a nice designed logo with this motto. To print stickers with that.

</comment><comment><USER77> On mobile Firefox with uBlock Origin addon is so much better than Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER78> Am I the only one that uses Safari?

</comment><comment><USER79> If this gains enough traction I can see Google releasing a product as "Noto" to poison search results.

<comment><USER80> You're about five years late.

[https://www.google.com/get/noto/](https://www.google.com/get/noto/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> jk: i think we need nochrome.google domain and also need noyoutube nogmail...

</comment><comment><USER82> qutebrowser is better than both Firefox and Chrome at respecting privacy.

</comment><comment><USER83> Isn't Google the biggest donor to Mozilla foundation?

<comment><USER84> Google pays Mozilla Corporation to be the default search engine in Firefox. I wouldn't classify that as a donation, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I am quite satisfied with using chrome. Once there will be suitable alternative i will gladly move away from it tho, just a breath of fresh air.

<comment><USER86> Out of curiosity what makes Firefox or any other web browser fail to be a suitable alternative to you?

<comment><USER87> Firefox doesn't have hardware video decoding support for Linux, so watching videos on Firefox is terrible compared to Chromium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I wonder as being privacy focused, why did they not put Brave as recommended browser instead of Firefox?

<comment><USER89> I'm sure you look you can find something which tells you that Microsoft is also privacy focused in their marketing material. Heck even google says they are focused on privacy:

[https://policies.google.com/faq?hl=en- US](https://policies.google.com/faq?hl=en-US)

> We know security and privacy are important to you – and they are important > to us, too. We make it a priority to provide strong security and give you > confidence that your information is safe and accessible when you need it.

I guess they should just shut down the site now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I've never installed chrome unless I had to to test and fix a bug in it. I always use ff except on my android phone. By the second out third click ff crashed on my android phone. It makes me so sad that I can't use it on my phone.

It makes me so happy that people are finally realizing how evil Google is and pushing to end them.

They are so bad.

</comment><comment><USER91> That claims about Youtube. Especially "YouTube has contributed to a growth of the flat earth conspiracies at the expense of scientific fact."

Do you understand how algorithm or statistics works?

They are giving people what they want. Freedom. People is watching that videos and made them more popular. They are free to share their thoughts.

Even google can't predict all the negativeness and prevent them with computer systems. Expecting being a god from google is unfair.

I think this is hate for google more than arguments against google.

I dislike chrome and using Firefox for a long time. But i don't think this is objective and completely true.

<comment><USER92> You know this is a very superficial understanding of what has happened right? And it doesn't capture how the design of the algorithms are actually shaping peoples views? The idea that it just gives you what you want is just not an accurate understanding of what is happening.

I suggest you read the work being published by Stanford U and Renee DiResta -- [https://twitter.com/noUpside](https://twitter.com/noUpside)</comment></comment>


Aging Is a Communication Breakdown - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/70/variables/aging-is-a-communication-breakdown <comment><USER2> Translating problems across domains alert (!).

This article got me thinking. Oncology research sounds like live-debugging the race conditions of a millions-year-old, self-mutating program with billions (trillions) of lines of source code... And to top it all off, it's written in a language whose syntax is elusive.

If you're lucky, you can sometimes observe some aspects of its execution, but always at the cost of context-depriving tunnel vision, and only with a really expensive and proprietary IDE.

If that analogy's anywhere close to the mark, I can't imagine the patience of the people doing this research; bravo, sincerely.

With that analogy, this article suggests that researchers have attached an information-theory-backed meaning to a previously-observed pattern in the observed life cycle of our cells. The black box is revealing itself, with deliberate observation, to be an increasingly intricate and beautifully- designed grey box. Every lumen of that box is hard-fought, and must be super rewarding!

Nature's one heck of an engineer :)

<comment><USER3> It's always fun when people frame any given problem as an engineering problem. I'd enjoy seeing the reverse: an engineering problem framed as an artistic or literary problem, for example.

<comment><USER4> Read italo calvino!

<comment><USER3> Interesting, I'll start with "Invisible Cities". Thanks!

<comment><USER5> Invisible cities is wonderful, I'm excited for you.

And speaking of invisible cities, I came across this really neat project a little while ago:

[https://github.com/mewo2/deserts/raw/master/novel.pdf](https://github.com/mewo2/deserts/raw/master/novel.pdf)

If I remember correctly (don't have the time atm to dig into it again) the project had first trained one net to generate images, then had another one trained on invisible cities to create the descriptions for the images. The above pdf is the output.

<comment><USER3> This is amazing. Such a perfect example of using engineering in service of art. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Edit] Here is some context for the link you provided: [https://procedural- generation.tumblr.com/post/138688390613/t...](https://procedural- generation.tumblr.com/post/138688390613/the-deserts-of-the-west- nanogenmo-2015-travel)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Nature is more complex than we previously thought."

The human ego is a hell of a thing...

</comment><comment><USER7> I've concluded (for myself) that triggering autophagy is the easiest, free thing I can do every day to cull bad cells in my body that may lead to cancer/speed up aging.

<comment><USER8> Autophagy pathways are disrupted in senescent and cancer cells otherwise autophagy would already have happened. Some way to avoid or fix that disruption might be an approach to fight cancer but even then, there are many more things going wrong in the body with increasing age. E.g. telomere shortening which is obviously a greater threat the more autophagy there is in your body. Aging is one of the most complex diseases that exist, maybe the most complex disease. Research on preventing and curing age is very welcome, but there isn't a single simple thing that can cure it. The cure for it will very likely be more complex than any other cure we've ever developed for any medical condition to this day.

<comment><USER7> I'm not suggesting autophagy cures aging, but there's at least plenty of studies on genetically similar species that shows fasting can extend average lifespan.

<comment><USER9> So does decent, affordable (or "free"), healthcare. On balance I'll take NHS over autophagy.

<comment> barry-cotter Randomised controlled trials disagree. Healthcare spending has amazingly small effects on outcomes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experime...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experiment)

An early paper with interim results from the RAND HIE concluded that health insurance without coinsurance "leads to more people using services and to more services per user," referring to both outpatient and inpatient services.[5] Subsequent RAND HIE publications "rule[d] out all but a minimal influence, favorable or adverse, of free care for the average participant"[6] but determined that a "low income initially sick group assigned to the HMO... [had a] greater risk of dying" than those assigned to fee-for-service (FFS) care.[7] The experiment also demonstrated that cost sharing reduced "appropriate or needed" medical care as well as "inappropriate or unnecessary" medical care.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment)

Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures, but "it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."[4][5]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Rather like bit rot.</comment>


New York eyes a 'breathlyzer' for texting while driving - <AUTHOR> http://timesunion.com/local/article/Lawmakers-look-at-breathlyzer-for-texting-while-11105205.php <comment><USER2> This will be struck down by the courts so fast the ink won't even be dry. Your phone is the backbone of your life and contains pretty much all of your private information and allowing police to scoop all of that up without a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional.

<comment><USER3> at the rate of which laws are changing, I wish I could believe ideas like this would be immediately struck down however I suspect more laws like this will be created to our surprise on a consistent basis.

the chief argument being, the law needs tools to protect its citizens.

the sacrifice of privacy for security has been towards security on a consistent basis for a while now, I see no reason for that to change.

<comment><USER4> At the rate which laws are changing? Can you be as specific as you can about the priors you're using to generate this conclusion?

<comment><USER3> caught me, I am grumbling about net-neutrality and my inability to keep up with what is going on.

the tiff between fbi and apple[0] I see as woefully unresolved. and my concern is when I hear politicians discuss it I hear in my brain the following "we need silicon valley to give us tools, they are creative and smart and I'm sure they can do it" this is not unique to D or R I actually think I recall Hillary making a comment along those lines that I do not have time to track down right now. lastly what about ISPs having their new rights to our privacy [1][2], in regards to [2] there were many that sprouted some collectecting a few hundred thousand dollars... what became of them I do not know.

I suspect some agreement with apple will be reached, or worse which I am incapable of imagining. The government persists and I do not think the general populace has the vigilance to keep up. comments like "

comments like that of Eric Schmidt (I am paraphrasing) -- Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to hide.. I pulled an all nighter and see myself grumbling but I feel this is coherent enough for others to fill in blanks. I feel powerless to change the current state of affairs and the trajectory we are heading.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside- th...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-the-fbis- encryption-battle-with-apple) [1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/senate-puts-isp- profit...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/senate-puts-isp-profits-over- your-privacy) [2] [https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData](https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone know where I can get one of these devices that can bypass the security of a smartphone and scrape it's contents? Also, will the mobile OS manufacturers be patching this gaping security hole?

<comment><USER6> It also interestingly works on all devices evidently. I think it's vaporware it says it hasn't been developed yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> These technologies (including actual breathlyzer) are patches that might reduce bad human driving behavior but will never eliminate it. In my opinion the only way to solve this is to stop humans from driving altogether. The biggest reason I'm excited that self driving car technology is maturing is because I won't need to worry (and often see through windshield) that a fellow driver is pressing gas pedal while paying no attention where he/she 's going.

</comment><comment><USER8> The article mentions this technology is still glitchy. But how will it ever become non-glitchy? Police will not be able to constitutionally require you to provide a passcode if the phone is locked and there is established case law to support this, so the device would have to scan the phone without a passcode.

Doesn't existing security on modern phones (the iPhone's secure enclave, for example) make this extremely difficult to do?

<comment><USER9> Older iPhones have exploits that allow bypassing some or all of the protections. It's likely exploits will be found or have been found against current (iPhone 7) hardware given the economic incentives. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any out in the wild.

As for android phones, afaik you're pretty boned.

<comment><USER10> That's a little alarmist. Apple at least appears to take iOS security seriously, so if there was a known flaw that was actively being used to extract data in the wild it would get patched very quickly.

Why do assert that Android phones are just broken? Even with traditional full device encryption without specialized hardware support, it is very difficult to extract keys from a running device without some sort of known vulnerability.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could build a simple device that someone like a State Trooper could use to pull usable information off an encrypted phone made in the last two years old with any kind of reliability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it keeping track of speed while I perform tasks? or the text I sent a few minutes ago in a parking lot with the car off going to get me a ticket?

Or, what if I handed my phone to the passenger?

</comment><comment><USER12> This article was really light on technological details:

>The technology is still in development. But the concept is a device that would use cutting-edge software to determine whether a person's smartphone was being used at the time of an accident.

Does anyone know anything about what Cellebrite does? Their website feels jargon-y on the surface, didn't get a clear sense of what all they do on an initial visit. Is what they're proposing even possible without help from Apple/Google?

<comment><USER13> Judging from the release notes of their other products, which I assume this will be based on, it relies on exploits, or having the phone unlocked. So if you run a patched google phone or an iphone, they get nothing.

[http://www.cellebrite.com/Releases/MobileForensics/UFED6.1_R...](http://www.cellebrite.com/Releases/MobileForensics/UFED6.1_ReleaseNotes_EN.pdf)

The device lists makes and models of Android phones they can access, and ones they can bypass the lock. I have to assume they are using exploits. Especially with the lack of similar lists for Apple.

What I have to wonder though, are they getting a special version of the product, or is the euphemism or a digital "breathalyzer" just a way of dodging the fact that they want to do warrant less digital forensics on people's devices?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems like there are a couple big issues with this.

1) What if your passenger was using your phone?

2) What if you using voice-commands to send a text (especially if via CarPlay, etc...)?

<comment><USER15> True, passenger in the car does blow a hole through this. But that's only something like 5% of cars, so it'd be easy to only target the other 95%.

Voice to text is certainly harder to prove right now.

To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.

<comment><USER11> > To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is > something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government > on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read > out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.

It wouldn't save lives -- it's only useful after the fact. My phone shouldn't spy or taddle on me (more than's already required to connect to the cell network.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just don't know how this could be provable? Either there's an OS level log that you're signing your life away on that is a huge privacy risk (and requires OS level engineering) or they're just guesstimating off data use. I can't see how they'd be able to differentiate from a hands free UX interaction from one done physically. Also, if in a car of multiple people, it begs the question who is responsible for using the phone? When traveling with friends/family/significant others/guests often we hand off our device for media usage.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a horrible idea.

I'm not going to unlock my phone for the cops just because they pull me over. Once they connect, who knows what data they will capture and how that will be used. Driving isn't probable case for them to look through my emails... and once I unlock my phone for them they can see everything.

Also... it's stupidly easy to circumvent. Just carry an old phone and switch it out when they ask. They won't have probable cause to search the car, so it's really whatever phone you give them.

I hate how they waste tax money on crap like this.

</comment><comment><USER18> How soon before Apple and Google patch whatever mechanisms this tool is using to check phone activity?

Since my phone uses Qi charging, maybe I see a value in epoxying my USB port...

<comment><USER19> Take it a step further and put a USB killer inside the phone!

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/usb-killer-fries- dev...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/usb-killer-fries-devices/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Constitutions normally only protect the content of communications, not the fact that communications occur. This isnt even the traditional metadata debate (inside v outside of an envalope). They dont care who or what you text, just the when and that you did. A mandatory tech that betrays only the time that a text was sent will probably survive legal scrutiny.

<comment><USER21> 4A makes no distinction between content/things and actions. A timeline of my actions is absolutely something I am (should be) secure in.

Furthermore, the idea that privacy means secrecy is too narrow even when we think only about personal information, like the contents of a journal. Suppose I give you my diary and urge you to read it. No one would think you are violating my privacy when you do so. The reason is that privacy is not about the information itself, no matter how personal it may be. Instead, this aspect of privacy – informational privacy – is about my right to control what other see, and in this example I have given you my permission.

Privacy has less to do with the information we conceal from the world than with the close and trusted people that we determine to share our information with.

My Actions, i.e. the act of communicating, is absolutely protected under the original intent of the fourth amendment. Now, that means very little nowadays, but your statement - "Constitutions normally only protect the content of communications, not the fact that communications occur" \- is patently untrue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

</comment><comment><USER22> So um, can we name and shame whatever start-up is doing this?

</comment><comment><USER23> Pointless. I mean sure if they see them do it, fine them, but I am far more concerned with drivers who are drunk - they are dangerous the entire trip.

</comment><comment><USER24> this is why we just need to get self-driving cars sooner, this is solving the wrong problem.

</comment><comment><USER25> this seems to be unconstitutional on its face, but the courts have been willing to let cops get away with murder, so it probably would end up being allowed.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is the beginning of the end. Privacy is gone, humanity is doomed. What other data will these devices skim while they are looking through the phone OS to see when the last text message you sent was?

We are on a slippery slope to being completely controlled by cops and their technology. Pretty soon every law enforcement vehicle is going to come equipped with a LTE spoofer running in their car that skims all this information from the phones in the near vicinity.

You'll get automatic messages in your car's dashboard display when you send a text message - "Pull over, you broke the law and sent a text while driving. A cop will be here soon to arrest you."

<comment><USER27> On one hand, driving isn't a right and if you're piloting a 5k+ lb projectile at 70mph(or 50k+ in the case of some truckers I've seen texting + driving) you deserve to have the goddamn book thrown at you.

It would be nicer if there was a way to do this without complete privacy invasion, at the bare minimum a warrant + request to your carrier for just timestamp metadata would make me much more comfortable.

<comment><USER11> What if my passenger was making the call or text on my phone (which isn't uncommon, at least with my group of friends)?

What if the texts were minutes before at a parking lot, while the car was off? How does anything but a copy actually seeing a cell phone in my hand while driving prove beyond a doubt I'm guilty?

<comment><USER27> E911 pings should provide moving speed at the time of the text. An officer is going to take your Driver's License, so they should should be able to differentiate between you and your passengers.

<comment><USER28> How accurate are E911 pings?

What if I give my phone to a passenger? My driver's license has literally nothing to do with that.

My wife and I both have expensive smart phones. We frequently let the passenger use the driver's phone for, e.g. navigational purposes. If we get in an accident while I'm driving and my wife is using _my phone_ to configure a route, how is a cop to know that?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uber's Lesson: Silicon Valley's Startup Machine Needs Fixing - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/technology/uber-start-up-lessons.html <comment><USER2> This is ludicrous!

"Culture that creates wealth needs to change because one CEO resigned".

Because the finance industry is now perfect after the 2009 meltdown, so we can all look elsewhere, and the massive task of creating billions from nothing more than an idea and a culture of supplying capital to ideas that are not currently profitable is incredibly easy to do and replicate, and can be done by anyone anywhere /s (if that is needed).

</comment><comment><USER3> He was the right person, with the right attitude, and the right amount of drive to build Uber. But instead of shifting gears into building a sustainable, welcoming, ethical business, it went into overdrive. Without a force of personality it's hard to envision somebody upending the taxi monopolies, or creating a term for something "let's grab an Uber".

This obviously doesn't exclude all the bad things that have happened, and his poor judgement, but there's some good along with the bad that we should look at, I think.

Anyway, I think Uber is largely done for with or without Travis. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I fail to see, aside from "hey let's grab an Uber and the ubiquity of the term", Uber doesn't offer anything that can't be either easily replicated (Lyft or others), or is a difficult task that they are simply not the market leader in (autonomous vehicles) nor do they look to be in the future.

I don't foresee a very good future for the firm, either way. We'll see.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think there is just way too much money around. I don't see value in pushing a company to the size of Uber without having an idea how to be sustainable. It would be healthier if startups received less money and would have to be profitable earlier. This is an extremely distorted market.

</comment><comment><USER5> I hate articles like this that try to boil things down into one tidy narrative.

Bear in mind that no substantiated evidence was ever uncovered/disclosed by Susan Fowler's article. If the optics weren't so bad, she would probably be sued for libel, as one unsubstantiated article caused material harm to an ongoing business concern.

Regardless, indicting a whole business ecosystem based on one outlier seems like a reductive simplistic approach to things. The Waymo trade secret lawsuit is far more substantive than any uncorroborated sexual discrimination anecdote, but that doesn't get mentioned hardly at all because it doesn't fit in with the "silicon valley sexist" narrative.

<comment><USER6> Incredible. You actually don't belive these women who are out here, in public, risking their reputations, to deliver the truth. This kind of mentality, of not believing women when they report sexual harassment and assault, is what's so fucked up about Tech.

Travis is a shitty human. He has shit morals. He created a culture that discriminated against women. He was _the_ leader who was at the helm as Uber grew. Ultimately, he had the authority to change course: he chose not to. That is a massive part of his legacy. It is on par with everything he made at Uber.

Personally, I am glad he got fired and is being made an example. Tech has been an old boy's club for too long. I am sick and tired of dealing with immature, emotionally underdeveloped or emotionally absent, people in tech. One can be a brilliant, analytical, logical, computer nerd AND be emotionally present and responsible. Tech is becoming too important to be held back by childish behavior.

FWIW yes, I am in tech myself. I identify as a man, both gender and sex. I work at a startup in SF.

<comment><USER5> > You actually don't belive these women who are out here, in public, risking > their reputations, to deliver the truth. This kind of mentality, of not > believing women when they report sexual harassment and assault, is what's so > fucked up about Tech.

I don't generally believe accusations of wrongdoing without evidence, just because they fit the cultural narrative about what's perceived as fucked up about tech.

Just as I wouldn't believe rape or murder accusations without proof, I am not willing to believe sexual harassment claims without proof.

Your statement is indicative of everything that's wrong with the current media circus. You assert that Travis is a shitty human, and you make the assumption that tech is already fucked up and that it's an old boys club. Baseless accusations backed up by neither reason nor logic? How are leveling these accusations without evidence being "emotionally present and responsible"? You taking such glee in the misfortunes of others tends to support my point, as this seems like a personal vendetta masquerading as virtual signaling.</comment></comment></comment>


Russian Hackers Tried Breaching State Voter Systems, DHS Says - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/russian-hackers-tried-breaching-wisconsin-voter-system-homeland-security-says-669917 <comment><USER2> oh, no it's russian hackers again! someone, call james comey!</comment>


Here Dragons Abound: Exploring procedural generation and display of fantasy maps - <AUTHOR> https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com <comment><AUTHOR> Make sure to click around in the history - 2019 was absolutely dominated by map border generation posts so far (concept; grammar; different styles: e.g. celtic knot generation). While it was interesting, there's much more. Some examples:

 _barrier islands_ (islands parallel to a coast, a very common thing as it seems): [https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/12/barrier- islan...](https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/12/barrier-islands.html)

 _grassland_ : a short series, starting at [https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/08/the- grassland...](https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-grasslands- part-1.html)

 _names_ : naming places is a larger series of postings, he's starting it here: [https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-naming- of...](https://heredragonsabound.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-naming-of-places- part-1.html)

 _..._

<comment><USER2> Is his software available anywhere?

<comment><USER3> No, it's not. However, you can see the software that his work was originally based on here:

[https://github.com/mewo2/terrain](https://github.com/mewo2/terrain)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been following this for what seems like a couple of years now. As someone who is into both maps and procedural generation of content, it's fascinating.

Procedural generation as a whole has so many, so very many algorithms out there and it is pleasant to see quite a few of them being born right on that blog.

</comment><comment><USER3> This blog has such a wealth of interesting information!

I wish more people would blog regularly about their process of creation.

</comment><comment><USER5> I really want to implement that Planchon Darboux algorithm now...</comment>


The Audacity of a Ninth Grader - <AUTHOR> http://ninjasandrobots.com/the-audacity-of-a-ninth-grader/

<comment><USER2> Love it</comment>


PrivExec: Private Execution as an Operating System Service - <AUTHOR> http://seclab.ccs.neu.edu/publications/sp2013privexec.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> This is appearing in the upcoming IEEE S&P conference: <http://www.ieee- security.org/TC/SP2013/program.html></comment>