[AlexandrB]

So you're saying that privacy is impossible?

If that's true, then I'd rather go down fighting (no matter how futile that is) than willingly give up any more private information to Google. I think the time for pragmatism when it comes to privacy is long over.

[tptacek]

I'm saying what I said: if your browser isn't adequately secure, all the anti-tracking features don't much matter, because the people you really need to worry about will be able to own up your entire machine and quietly persist themselves into it.

[untangle]

Let me play back what I'm hearing: Chrome is great because it uniquely protects you from 3rd-party hackers on the internet. Fair enough.

But do Chrome's protections also protect you equally from intercession by Google? I just want to clarify this point in my mind.

[TeMPOraL]

> But do Chrome's protections also protect you equally from intercession by Google? I just want to clarify this point in my mind.

I'd say yes, unless Chrome has specific backdoors for Google. If that was ever discovered, I'd imagine a huge shitstorm happening.

[majewsky]

Google doesn't need backdoors into Chrome, in the same way that it's technically not cheating if you adjust the rules to fit your demands better than others (see f.i. AMP).

[AlexandrB]

> because the people you really need to worry about

I think we disagree who to really worry about. I worry more about persistent low-level corporate surveillance more than hacker attacks because while the latter is more acute and can cause great financial harm, the former is whats going to damage my freedom and right to privacy once the government decides it wants to firehose all that data.