Discussion:
Adobe Acrobat Reader DC Update Installs Chrome Browser Extension
(too old to reply)
Nathan Hale
2017-01-14 05:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
Mayayana
2017-01-14 14:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Nathan Hale" <***@remailer.org.uk> wrote

| >
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
|
| adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
|

I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
become more relevant. This has always been their
strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
online, yet most people have it installed and don't
even know it.

Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
Flash empire. It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
were nothing more than a Flash software program,
with virtually no HTML. They've done the same with
PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
though it were the only PDF software.

That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
the promise of enhanced functionality for services.

The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.

And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
little regard for their privacy.
David B.
2017-01-14 18:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2017 14:41, Mayayana claimed ....
Post by Mayayana
Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
little regard for their privacy.
There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(

You KNOW that, Mayayana!

See: Message-ID: <CqdeA.525051$***@fx22.fr7>
--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it."
Mayayana
2017-01-14 20:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"David B." <***@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote

| > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
| You KNOW that, Mayayana!
|

No, I don't. This is the same discussion as a few
posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
the outside world.

No one has to let Google follow them around by
installing Chrome. For that matter, there's really
no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
HOSTS file.

No one has to let for-profit corporations spy on
and claim co-ownership of their email or stored files.
No one has to put up with targetted ads, web bugs,
or online spying in general. Some privacy efforts
require more effort than others. Some may require
sacrifices. But there's just no excuse for using freebie
webmail, online storage, or Chrome. Those are easy
choices to make with no cost aside from a little bit
of effort. If you use any of them you have no
nusiness complaining about loss of privacy because
you're helping to create that world.

When I go online I show my IP address. (Though I
could block that with something like Tor. Some
people, in dangerous countries, have to do that.)
I provide very little else to be tracked. There are
arcane methods that could help to track me, but
in general, I'm invisible to the spyware ad business
and the datamining marketers. You can be, too.
By contrast, the average person online is probably
personally identified by numerous companies at
every page they visit.
David B.
2017-01-14 21:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| > Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| There is *NO* privacy on-line. :-(
| You KNOW that, Mayayana!
|
No, I don't. This is the same discussion as a few
posts back. It's not all-or-nothing. Saying there's
no privacy is just a lazy excuse for not dealing with
the outside world.
No one has to let Google follow them around by
installing Chrome. For that matter, there's really
no reason to deal with Google at all, any more than
absolutely necessary. They're just plain sleazy.
You can avoid Chrome, Google search and gmail.
You can block Google analytics, Google fonts,
Google/Doubleclick tracking and ads, etc in your
HOSTS file.
No one has to let for-profit corporations spy on
and claim co-ownership of their email or stored files.
No one has to put up with targetted ads, web bugs,
or online spying in general. Some privacy efforts
require more effort than others. Some may require
sacrifices. But there's just no excuse for using freebie
webmail, online storage, or Chrome. Those are easy
choices to make with no cost aside from a little bit
of effort. If you use any of them you have no
nusiness complaining about loss of privacy because
you're helping to create that world.
When I go online I show my IP address. (Though I
could block that with something like Tor. Some
people, in dangerous countries, have to do that.)
I provide very little else to be tracked. There are
arcane methods that could help to track me, but
in general, I'm invisible to the spyware ad business
and the datamining marketers. You can be, too.
By contrast, the average person online is probably
personally identified by numerous companies at
every page they visit.
Ah! You've not read my post here, have you?!!!

Message-ID: <CqdeA.525051$***@fx22.fr7>
--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it."
Nomen Nescio
2017-01-15 12:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
| >
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/adobe-acrobat-reader-dc-update-installs-chrome-browser-extension/
|
| adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
|
I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
become more relevant. This has always been their
strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
online, yet most people have it installed and don't
even know it.
Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
Flash empire. It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
were nothing more than a Flash software program,
with virtually no HTML. They've done the same with
PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
though it were the only PDF software.
That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
little regard for their privacy.
You could say the same for Mozilla. I wish there was a browser
extension to use anonymous remailers. Now THAT would something.
Mayayana
2017-01-15 16:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Nomen Nescio" <***@dizum.com> wrote

| > And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
| > extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
| > king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
| > little regard for their privacy.
|
| You could say the same for Mozilla.


The SRWare Iron site has a listing of the numerous
tracking details built into Chrome:

https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

The Mozillians may be taking the low road in the past
few years, but at least FF is realtively configurable,thanks
to extension makers. Chrome spyware is built-in and Google
is essentially a for-profit spyware and advertising company.

I read recently that the original creator of FF (Brendan
Eich), has created a new browser. The Brave browser. It
turns out that's a profound misnomer. Brave, based on
Chromium, is designed to be spyware. It seems to be
based on the presumtion that the Internet is doomed to
be no more than a commercial venue. A corporate shopping
mall. So the best we can do is to kick out the sleaziest
mall tenants.
https://www.brave.com/blogpost_1.html

His thinking in a nutshell: The Internet must have ads to
survive and ads come with spyware, so lets make better
spyware. Classic money-crazed, murky-logic, Silicon Valley
hipster thinking in "social progressive" sheeps' clothing.

Loading...