# New Google Chrome beta: Adds enhanced Privacy controls, NoScript equivalent



## Runefox (Mar 2, 2010)

More information here.

In addition to a new automatic page translation option, Chrome's newest beta now adds privacy options including the ability to deny plugins and javascript either by whitelist or by blacklist, which duplicates the functionality of Firefox's NoScript within the browser. By default, these options are set to allow all sites to access plugins or use javascript, but it's fairly simple to toggle and fairly simple to enable/disable javascript and plugins on a per-site basis: When a site uses Javascript or a plugin, an icon appears in the address bar, which when clicked, offers quick access to add the site to the whitelist.

This has the effect of both FlashBlock and NoScript at once. Maybe soon we'll have the ability to actually block ads from being downloaded like Firefox does...


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 2, 2010)

Will these trickle over to the Chromium builds?

Also, ad-blocking is very simple and can (and should) be done at the OS level:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm


----------



## Runefox (Mar 2, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Will these trickle over to the Chromium builds?


Yeah, I'd say this is actually also being implemented in Chromium, but I can't be sure exactly. I haven't been able to dig any info up on a cursory glance, but I'm sure diving into some of the Chromium discussions on Google Code should bring up at least something.



> Also, ad-blocking is very simple and can (and should) be done at the OS level:
> 
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm



Yeah, ideally. I'm still trying to figure out why pfSense doesn't allow the HOSTS file to be modified (it resets) so that I'd be able to toss that on the router rather than on each individual computer (all three of them, yeah, I'm lazy) on the network.

Of course, that particular method will only really work for DNS-based lookups, and not if the ads are linked directly via IP, which a browser-based blocklist will handle.


----------



## Nollix (Mar 2, 2010)

Uh, Noscript already blocks all plugins as well as Javascript. This adds nothing new to the table. Thanks, but I'll continue using FF.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 2, 2010)

Nollix said:


> Uh, Noscript already blocks all plugins as well as Javascript. This adds nothing new to the table. Thanks, but I'll continue using FF.



This would be my point: The functionality is now in Chrome. But thanks for playing.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 2, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, ideally. I'm still trying to figure out why pfSense doesn't allow the HOSTS file to be modified (it resets) so that I'd be able to toss that on the router rather than on each individual computer (all three of them, yeah, I'm lazy) on the network.



Could just be some aspect of it keeping it's config clean.  When does it reset it?  You might be able to use a script to just copy back the proper one.  And 3... psh... come now, that's not so bad - where's your youthful vigor? 



Runefox said:


> Of course, that particular method will only really work for DNS-based lookups, and not if the ads are linked directly via IP, which a browser-based blocklist will handle.



Ahh, good point.  Fortunately most sites don't link by IP, but I have seen a few here and there that do.  Haven't had much luck in finding a nice IP blacklist of ad sites yet. :/


----------



## incongruency (Mar 2, 2010)

While it is nice that Chrome is integrating these features (and I'm still holding out for a more Iron-like approach on privacy, and AdBlock-like image blocking without having to modify the hosts file) I'm wary of where it is leading.  If they continue to add functions that as Nollix pointed out work just as well, if not better, in a plugin format, where will it stop?  I can only see it ending up with feature creep, where it will continue to run slower and slower because of everything they are adding on.

Make no mistake, Firefox is just as guilty of this, but I was hoping that Chromium would stay close to its minimalist roots, from which I had hoped the Mozilla team may have taken a hint.  Sadly, this does not appear to be the case.

So, basically, my biggest problem can be said in how Runefox described it "The functionality is now *in* Chrome"  When it should be *available*.


----------



## fuzthefurfox (Mar 2, 2010)

i prefer firefox tried out chrome but i liked firefox more


----------



## Runefox (Mar 2, 2010)

incongruency said:


> So, basically, my biggest problem can be said in how Runefox described it "The functionality is now *in* Chrome"  When it should be *available*.



I realize you already mentioned this, but how often has something like this happened with Firefox? Live Bookmarks, Clear Private Data, AwesomeBar, Personas, Private Browsing... To me, this kind of feature, which is very much lightweight and with its behavior set to default to what the browser would normally be without it, is a very sensible addition to a browser's integrated privacy features, especially when many people recommend that one not browse without it and consistently cite its unavailability as a reason not to use Chrome. It doesn't seem to have added any perceivable bloat, and it still runs quick as ever.

Hell, really? This isn't much different from that familiar old toggle-box for "Enable Javascript" except that it has support for configurable rules for when to enable/disable, and a fairly unobtrusive interface to boot. More options are always better, providing they have sensible defaults, especially if they're just that - Options. Modifiers.


----------



## incongruency (Mar 2, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I realize you already mentioned this, but how often has something like this happened with Firefox? Live Bookmarks, Clear Private Data, AwesomeBar, Personas, Private Browsing...


Indeed, as I said, Firefox is just a guilty, but what I fear is that this sort of thing is a slippery-slope of sorts for Chromium.

Yes, it may not be much now, but the concept that something that is outside the browser's scope (as in this sort of filtering versus tabs; filtering can be done with an addon, tabs require control by the browser) is something that is taken on by the browser leads one to think that this will be true for more and more "features" that will be just as sensible, and while it may not seem to impact the browser then, over time it has a way of adding up.

I had hoped that Chromium would be some sort of example, that one can have less and still end up with a good following, but it seems to me that this will not be the case.

That said, all there is to do is to wait and see at this point.  That, and continue to try to have Personas and other addons removed from being welded to Firefox.


----------



## Nollix (Mar 3, 2010)

Runefox said:


> This would be my point: The functionality is now in Chrome. But thanks for playing.



Who cares? Firefox still has a vast library of niche addons that Chrome won't reach in a long time.


----------



## Greykitty (Mar 3, 2010)

I rather like Chrome, really love it when it comes to using old machines with not much ram, but for security and plug in sake I still use firefox.  Chrome may one day replace firefox completely for me but not yet.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 3, 2010)

Nollix said:


> Who cares? Firefox still has a vast library of niche addons that Chrome won't reach in a long time.



Who cares? That's totally a different topic altogether. This topic is about Chrome receiving a hefty security and privacy upgrade. Go post in the "what browser do you use" thread instead.

Frankly, better security and options for it is always good; I don't really care what browser you use, you have to agree with that.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 3, 2010)

incongruency said:


> Indeed, as I said, Firefox is just a guilty, but what I fear is that this sort of thing is a slippery-slope of sorts for Chromium.
> 
> Yes, it may not be much now, but the concept that something that is outside the browser's scope (as in this sort of filtering versus tabs; filtering can be done with an addon, tabs require control by the browser) is something that is taken on by the browser leads one to think that this will be true for more and more "features" that will be just as sensible, and while it may not seem to impact the browser then, over time it has a way of adding up.



So you hope they don't add too much chrome to Chrome? :3c


----------



## incongruency (Mar 4, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> So you hope they don't add too much chrome to Chrome? :3c


More of I hope they start pulling things out, and leaving the extras to the addons.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 4, 2010)

incongruency said:


> More of I hope they start pulling things out, and leaving the extras to the addons.



Well, the extensions bit is a little bit of a more recent development, so hopefully going forward future features will involve more control over the browser so that things like AdBlock Plus can do their jobs proper. Again, though, I don't really see this as a big feature that an add-on should have sufficed for; It's literally just finer-tuned control over privacy options that every browser already has. But I guess you could see it as a start on ideas to expand on the original scope of the browser, especially since they already added skinning and other niceties to it.


----------



## incongruency (Mar 4, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Well, the extensions bit is a little bit of a more recent development, so hopefully going forward future features will involve more control over the browser so that things like AdBlock Plus can do their jobs proper. Again, though, I don't really see this as a big feature that an add-on should have sufficed for; It's literally just finer-tuned control over privacy options that every browser already has. But I guess you could see it as a start on ideas to expand on the original scope of the browser, especially since they already added skinning and other niceties to it.


Indeed.  I'm not always the best at delineating what I mean (and am often the worst), but that about sums up what I mean.  Thank you.


----------

