Chrome

I've read in other threads that Chrome is not safe and not liked. I use
Chrome Version 34.0.1847.116 m. Will someone please tell me what the problem
is with Chrome? It doesn't give me any problems and just recently wouldn't
let me open a "phishing" URL. I hope I'm not blissfully happy.

Thanks

Henry

Henry wrote:
I've read in other threads that Chrome is not safe and not liked. I use
Chrome Version 34.0.1847.116 m. Will someone please tell me what the
problem is with Chrome? It doesn't give me any problems and just
recently wouldn't let me open a "phishing" URL. I hope I'm not
blissfully happy.

Thanks

Henry

It depends on how many happy stories you've read about it.

All I can tell you, is the average user sees popups on Chrome,
they're not seeing with other browsers. Chrome is a popular
browser, which means a malware writer would be a fool not
to attempt to crack it. If you're going to do an exploit, you
try to do a Chrome one first. Because there's a bigger payoff.

Are these users "careful" with their browsers ? I have no
way of knowing that. A careless computer user, ends up with
a few more problems, than the rest of us.

All I'm saying about my own choices, is I've seen no
reason to adopt, or even test Chrome.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013...ed-on-day-one/

Every browser has been exploited at some point. No browser
is really all that safe. And it's going to depend on where
you go and what you do, as to what happens to you.

Even adding the wrong plugins to a browser can be bad.
Some of the browser exploits, have actually been distributed
as plugin updates.

I've had my computer "tipped over" by a browser exploit,
and at the time I was using Firefox. A commercial web site
for a large company, had a redirect placed at the root level
of the site, and my browser was sent "some place bad". So that's
how they got me. Normally, the site would be completely safe.
I missed a similar thing by a matter of hours, on another site.
By the time I got to that site, the mess had already been
cleaned up, so I didn't get hit by that one. This was a few
years back now, not a recent event.

Paul

"Henry" wrote in message
...
| I've read in other threads that Chrome is not safe and not liked. I use
| Chrome Version 34.0.1847.116 m. Will someone please tell me what the
problem
| is with Chrome? It doesn't give me any problems and just recently
wouldn't
| let me open a "phishing" URL. I hope I'm not blissfully happy.
|

Sorry Henry
Chrome is Not a Microsoft Problem

Ask Google Groups
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/chrome

"Paul" wrote in message
...
| Henry wrote:
| I've read in other threads that Chrome is not safe and not liked. I use
| Chrome Version 34.0.1847.116 m. Will someone please tell me what the
| problem is with Chrome? It doesn't give me any problems and just
| recently wouldn't let me open a "phishing" URL. I hope I'm not
| blissfully happy.
| Thanks
| Henry
| It depends on how many happy stories you've read about it.
| All I can tell you, is the average user sees popups on Chrome,
| they're not seeing with other browsers. Chrome is a popular
| browser, which means a malware writer would be a fool not
| to attempt to crack it. If you're going to do an exploit, you
| try to do a Chrome one first. Because there's a bigger payoff.
| Are these users "careful" with their browsers ? I have no
| way of knowing that. A careless computer user, ends up with
| a few more problems, than the rest of us.
| All I'm saying about my own choices, is I've seen no
| reason to adopt, or even test Chrome.
|
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013...ed-on-day-one/
| Every browser has been exploited at some point. No browser
| is really all that safe.

Just the Text Only
Browser is safe

For IE, Opera and Fx
Can be setup for Text Only
Browsering

No plugins need

I don't know about Chrome
Like you i will not Test it

Bill

| And it's going to depend on where
| you go and what you do, as to what happens to you.
| Even adding the wrong plugins to a browser can be bad.
| Some of the browser exploits, have actually been distributed
| as plugin updates.
| I've had my computer "tipped over" by a browser exploit,
| and at the time I was using Firefox. A commercial web site
| for a large company, had a redirect placed at the root level
| of the site, and my browser was sent "some place bad". So that's
| how they got me. Normally, the site would be completely safe.
| I missed a similar thing by a matter of hours, on another site.
| By the time I got to that site, the mess had already been
| cleaned up, so I didn't get hit by that one. This was a few
| years back now, not a recent event.
| Paul

Henry wrote:
I've read in other threads that Chrome is not safe and not liked. I use
Chrome Version 34.0.1847.116 m. Will someone please tell me what the
problem is with Chrome? It doesn't give me any problems and just
recently wouldn't let me open a "phishing" URL. I hope I'm not blissfully happy.

Thanks

Henry

I use chrome on my iPadAir and laptop , I quite happy with it . I never get
popups on it .

| Unfortunately, I use gmail, but I dont have another email source as in a
| private one.

You can get legitimate email for a small fee. Or you
can buy your own domain and get your own email. Or
you can usually get email through your ISP. I recently
wanted to get a junk email address and found only one --
inbox.com -- that didn't require me to give them a real
email address in order to get webmail. So most people
using free webmail have real email. They just find webmail
convenient, and in modern America one simply can't
overestimate the importance of convenience.

I worry not only about the basic, current problems.
(Google has claimed in court that *I* have no legitimate
expectation of privacy if I contact a GMail user. They
rationalize that by conflating the act of processing data
with having permission to read the email, which is like
saying the Postal Service has a right to read, copy, retain
and use for their own purposes, anything that passes
through their system because senders have implicitly
entrusted that material to them.)

I also worry about precedent. Even now the NSA is
siphoning bulk data and no one is sure whether that's
wrong. The only legal protection I know of is the law
against disclosing video rental history, which only exists
because Robert Bork's rental history was disclosed when
he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Maybe it will all get ironed out eventually, but as long
as the majority see no reason to hold corporations and
gov't even to a standard of common decency, that in
itself becomes precedent for legal rulings.

I don't use a smart phone, partly for privacy reasons,
partly because they're so expensive, and partly because
I simply don't need one. Yet I half expect that one of
these days I'll be stopped for a traffic infraction and arrested
for the violation of "failing to record one's communications
and whereabouts, by means of smart phone or other device,
to be readily available to any law enforcement authorities
upon request." As no privacy becomes the norm, privacy
itself becomes suspicious activity: "We can't see you,
Mr. Smith. Please step in front of the monitor and report."

On 4/17/2014 7:01 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Unfortunately, I use gmail, but I dont have another email source as in a
| private one.

You can get legitimate email for a small fee. Or you
can buy your own domain and get your own email. Or
you can usually get email through your ISP. I recently
wanted to get a junk email address and found only one --
inbox.com -- that didn't require me to give them a real
email address in order to get webmail. So most people
using free webmail have real email. They just find webmail
convenient, and in modern America one simply can't
overestimate the importance of convenience.

I worry not only about the basic, current problems.
(Google has claimed in court that *I* have no legitimate
expectation of privacy if I contact a GMail user. They
rationalize that by conflating the act of processing data
with having permission to read the email, which is like
saying the Postal Service has a right to read, copy, retain
and use for their own purposes, anything that passes
through their system because senders have implicitly
entrusted that material to them.)

I also worry about precedent. Even now the NSA is
siphoning bulk data and no one is sure whether that's
wrong. The only legal protection I know of is the law
against disclosing video rental history, which only exists
because Robert Bork's rental history was disclosed when
he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Maybe it will all get ironed out eventually, but as long
as the majority see no reason to hold corporations and
gov't even to a standard of common decency, that in
itself becomes precedent for legal rulings.

I don't use a smart phone, partly for privacy reasons,
partly because they're so expensive, and partly because
I simply don't need one. Yet I half expect that one of
these days I'll be stopped for a traffic infraction and arrested
for the violation of "failing to record one's communications
and whereabouts, by means of smart phone or other device,
to be readily available to any law enforcement authorities
upon request." As no privacy becomes the norm, privacy
itself becomes suspicious activity: "We can't see you,
Mr. Smith. Please step in front of the monitor and report."



Brilliant.......bring on the Hunger Games!!
--
Ed Mc
Nam Vet '66-'67
Semper Fi

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 02:52:52 -0400, wrote:

Unfortunately, I use gmail, but I dont have another email source as in a
private one.

How do you get to the internet. I don't think you're using free
internet at the library, because you have aioe for newsgroups.

So doesn't your internet provider provide you with one or even maybe
more than one email addresses?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:51:13 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 02:52:52 -0400, wrote:

Unfortunately, I use gmail, but I dont have another email source as in a
private one.

How do you get to the internet. I don't think you're using free
internet at the library, because you have aioe for newsgroups.

So doesn't your internet provider provide you with one or even maybe
more than one email addresses?

It's a weird deal. As long as I have a landline, I have internet access
included in the phone bill, but if I want "actual" dialup service, I
have to pay $18 more per month. The only difference is that without
paying that extra amount, I dont get email addresses or webpage space.
I dont believe they offer any support either, but I'm not sure about
that because I dont ask for help. The last time I had a different ISP
and asked for help, they completely screwed up my computer to the point
I had to restore my last backup. The phone company does not offer
usenet either, so there is no sense paying that extra amount just for
email. I dont need the webspace either.

Yea, I think this is weird too, but I wont complain. I need a landline
anyhow, because I am so far out in the country that my cellphone dont
get a signal much of the time, and since the cell is prepaid, the
landline is much cheaper for local calls. I think the phone company
does this to keep customers, because many people just have cellphones
now.

BTW: I can use AIOE from the library and other WIFI spots too. although
I rarely do it, because Im too busy downloading at WIFI's.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:52:33 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

It's not the fact they are "reading" it, it's the fact they think they
have the right to. It doesn't matter if you are doing nothing wrong,
they use the information gleaned for targeted advertising. Eventually,
they can deduce more about you personally that you would want them, or
anyone else, to know.

There's probably no person actually reading the email. Probably scanned
by computers looking for words, phrases, etc. they have flagged for
their use to discern the type of person you are.

In that case, I'll have to send an email with the words "Fu*k Google"
Repeated about 100 times. That way they'll know what kind of person I
am.... LOL.

On 4/19/14 4:21 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:52:33 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

It's not the fact they are "reading" it, it's the fact they think they
have the right to. It doesn't matter if you are doing nothing wrong,
they use the information gleaned for targeted advertising. Eventually,
they can deduce more about you personally that you would want them, or
anyone else, to know.

There's probably no person actually reading the email. Probably scanned
by computers looking for words, phrases, etc. they have flagged for
their use to discern the type of person you are.

In that case, I'll have to send an email with the words "Fu*k Google"
Repeated about 100 times. That way they'll know what kind of person I
am.... LOL.


LOL!!!

BTW, Google is no longer my primary search engine. It's the engine of
last resort. I'll use StartPage, Ixquick, and Duck Duck Go before Google.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"