back to article New open-source ad-blocking web browser emerges from brain of ex-Mozilla boss Eich

A new open-source browser that blocks ads and tracking code and so promises to "fix the Web" by offering a faster, privacy-respecting experience has been released. The Brave browser is the brainchild of former Mozilla (Firefox) CEO and JavaScript inventor Brendan Eich, and version 0.7 is now available to developers on GitHub …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    you'd be brave to install it

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re:

      We need the courageous!

      1. Mpeler
        Coat

        Re: Re: brave and courageous

        Brave new world???

        Braveheart?

        (OK....sorry)...

  2. Andy Non Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Sounds interesting

    Worth keeping an eye on. It would be nice to have an alternative to Firefox with Adblock+ and noscript and ghostery and BetterPrivacy and and... all wrapped up into the browser. While I like Firefox, it seems to have become a bit bloated of late.

    1. Mage Silver badge

      Re: Sounds interesting

      No, sounds creepy.

      I can see no reason why I'd switch to this from Firefox, unless Mozilla totally mess up. As it is, I need "Classic Theme Restorer" on Linux Mint with Mate and Windows to have sensible GUI / UX interface. I had to install an addon/plug in thingy on Thunderbird too.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: Sounds interesting

        There are two reasons for switching, if they get it right. One is to take control of your advertising profile and get it out of the hands of Google, Krux etc.

        The other is because you care about content providers' continued existance. Without ads there'd be no Guardian, no The Register and no Daily Mail. Even those with a paywall would struggle to survive, so no FT, no Telegraph and no Sun. Some of those you might not miss but you'd miss them if they all went. Without them we'd not know about the MPs expenses and NSA spying.

        Maybe something else will fill the gap but I can't see anything unfunded taking on the government other than paediatrician burning mobs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sounds interesting

          No Daily Mail? Excellent, sign me up.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No Daily Mail? Excellent, sign me up.

            I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No Daily Mail? Excellent, sign me up.

              But this doesn't silence any of the journalists at the Mail, just means that people visiting aren't helping fund their platform

            2. Tom 7 Silver badge

              Re: No Daily Mail? Excellent, sign me up.

              And I will defend to the death my right not to listen to or read that shit.

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Sounds interesting

          Agreed. Whether or not this is a good solution (am still thinking it over), they at least understand the problem. It's not Ads that bother me (unless they're they start autoplaying video and sound in which case it's an instant page close), it's the tracking.

          I'm happy for the staff of El Reg. to get paid! What I'm not happy with is Google having a detailed profile of me which is easily linked to who I am.

        3. nsld

          Re: Sounds interesting

          Cutting revenue to the daily mail will only impact the wealth of the owners and the tax advisors they employ.

        4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Sounds interesting

          "Without ads there'd be no Guardian, no The Register and no Daily Mail."

          But ads served as simple img files from the site host would still show since there's no way for a browser to tell the difference between ElRegHeroImage02037252.jpg and ElRegImage6356336.png, that latter being an advert for Dr Dobbs Patent Nerd Sex Attractant Pills.

          The tracking is gone, the personalisation which rarely works is gone, but the ads and the potential revenue are still there. With flash and script blocking the other annoyances are gone too.

          1. Josco

            Re: Sounds interesting

            Dr Dobbs Patent Nerd Sex Attractant Pills, do they work? Do they also do them as suppositories?

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Sounds interesting

        'As it is, I need "Classic Theme Restorer" ... to have sensible GUI / UX interface. I had to install an addon/plug in thingy on Thunderbird too.'

        Try Seamonkey: Firefox & Thunderbird functionality under one roof and a classic theme.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Admirable...but

    This sounds encouraging but challenging.

    Positioning yourself as a solution to the murky underbelly of Internet advertising, whilst describing yourself as a "browser-based ad-tech platform" sounds like an untenable position - or at least one that will quickly erode once it starts making money. Anyone remember "Do no evil."

    1. h4rm0ny
      Joke

      Re: Admirable...but

      >>Anyone remember "Do no evil."

      Not Google, that's for sure!

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

      I will unbutton a bit from time to time, click on an ad or two even. Just to keep the sites' advertisers happy. I don't need to see the crap. It's usually a quick click at coffee time.

      (Sounds like a euphemism I know).

      :-)

    2. ckm5

      Brought it on themselves

      Advertisers brought it on themselves. They abused the medium and people are fighting back. Google showed that text ads could be effective but blinky,blinky seems to appeal to ad suits more (perhaps they can extract more $$$ from their clients?).... Don't even get me started on auto-play audio and/or video.

      And if your are bandwidth constrained or have a relatively slow machine, you have no choice since a site like the Verge will load 40 to 50 scripts related to advertising alone.

      Besides, no advertiser seems to complain about 'Reader View' iOS which does the same thing as ad blockers.

      1. FF22

        Re: Brought it on themselves

        Your arguments is as moronic as arguing for locking up every white, every male, and every American person in jail, just because there were a few crimes committed by a (or a few) American white males some time ago. That's a false generalization and a collective punishment, which is not only wrong but also illegal to make. Just like it is blocking all ads on all sites just because there were some bad ads or even bad sites.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Brought it on themselves

          If "every white, every male, and every American person" stood shoulder to shoulder with the criminals in their midst and refused to acknowledge that they'd done anything wrong, or even that anything that had happened was wrong, in the face of a significant level of crime directed against people outside their number...

          ... then yes, it'd be completely fair to collectively punish the lot of them.

          That's what advertisers have done. Industry groups like the IAB have made a huge deal about "self-regulation" being the way forward, about how they'd keep out the bad apples to protect their own reputations, and then totally, utterly and abysmally failed to make even the most rudimentary attempt to follow through on that idea.

          Screw 'em. I owe them nothing. And if that means 94% of the internet is going to go bust, actually I'm OK with that.

          1. SundogUK

            Re: Brought it on themselves

            Me too.

          2. FF22

            Re: Brought it on themselves

            You heard that wooosh sound? It was the point made flying over your head.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          WTF?

          Re: Brought it on themselves

          FF22 - a late thirties marketing man with an uncomfortably large mortgage, few savings, a young child or two and the major earner in this family - today put out an impassioned plea to be allowed to keep his rather pointless but reasonably paid job by explaining that people who didn't see the glorious value in advertising were evil and should be locked up. He wanted to mention Hitler, clearly a powerful anti-advertising image, but a small voice in his head said not to, and reluctantly, Hitler was dropped from his impromptu online campaign.

          Sorry FF22, I don't like intrusive ads, and I don't like the people and firms who think this approach is anything but irritating and patronising. My blocker stays enabled.

          1. FF22

            Re: Brought it on themselves

            "explaining that people who didn't see the glorious value in advertising were evil and should be locked up"

            Reading comprehension just beat you at it. Again. Badly. No wonder our culture is doomed when most people can't even understand simple, three sentence comments, written in plain English.

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Brought it on themselves

              "Reading comprehension just beat you at it. Again. Badly. No wonder our culture is doomed when most people can't even understand simple, three sentence comments, written in plain English."

              "Your arguments is as moronic as arguing for..."

              You seem to find writing plain English difficult. However we do understand your badly written English. As a result most of us see you as an example of the advertising business displaying the exaggerated sense of entitlement that seems endemic there.

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Brought it on themselves

            "a late thirties marketing man"

            Are you sure? The more he writes the more he seems like a teenager on a gap year in advertising.

        3. SundogUK

          Re: Brought it on themselves

          Fuckwit.

        4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Brought it on themselves

          @FF22

          Let's extend your argument a little.

          On the whole websites and email are harmless and don't try to install malware so there's no reason not to run your OS in admin mode all the time and no need to use anti-virus software.

          You're failing to understand that by now adblocking isn't just to avoid all the attempts by advertisers to loose their screaming jiggling auto-play brain-farts on you, it's become part of your normal security setup to keep malvertising out.

          1. FF22

            Re: Brought it on themselves

            "Let's extend your argument a little."

            You can do that, but it's a logical fallacy, called beating a straw man. Replacing my original argument with one of your own an "proving" that it's somehow absurd or false says actually nothing about the validity of the original argument.

            "You're failing to understand that "

            No, I do not "fail to understand". On the contrary: I know what you don't: that ads can do no more harm to your computer than can do the web page they're embedded on. And I also know that ad networks are generally more secured and run by more professional people than are websites, in general.

            So blocking ads and and yet keeping visiting the websites themselves, while claiming that you do it just to avoid getting infected or harmed by them, is a no-brainer. Also, it's akin to taking goods at the mall and refusing to pay for them (ie. stealing them), and then claiming afterwards that you only did it, because money might contain germs and viruses, and you only stole the stuff to avoid getting infected.

            Theft is theft, no matter what your reasons for doing it are. And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Facepalm

              Ok...

              "And I also know that ad networks are generally more secured and run by more professional people than are websites, in general."

              How do you know? Sounds like bluster to me. Just take a look at the crap and verbose JS these ad networks spew up. Just time how much slower a page load is with the ads. Professional? Doesn't look like it.

              "And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft."

              No it isn't. I have no financial obligation to these websites - I am not paying for their content. I have signed no contract, agreed to no terms and conditions, broken no laws, nor acted irresponsibly. I have simply chosen not to view all the content I find irrelevant, like I'd do with reader view. Explain again why this is thievery.

              Anyway FF22, we will never agree so I'm leaving it now - with my ad blocker still very much switched on. You enjoy your slow webpage loads and extended data usage.

              1. FF22

                Re: Ok...

                "How do you know?"

                Are you seriously asking me how I know whether a multi-billion dollar company like for ex. Google running the Adsense network has more serious and educated professionals working on their services than for ex. Joe Doe who happens to run his own blog in his spare time? You didn't think that through, did you?

                "Just take a look at the crap and verbose JS these ad networks spew up."

                What, even if it would be true, would have nothing to do with how secure they are compared to the web sites they have their ads embedded on.

                "Just time how much slower a page load is with the ads. "

                Which, again, has nothing to do with the security of ad networks. And what's a minor inconvenience anyway, you have to bear for getting all those content and services you're consuming for free.

                "No it isn't. I have no financial obligation to these websites "

                Yes, you do. Those websites are providing services and content to you in return for you viewing the ads. They may even explicitly state that in their TOS.

                " I have signed no contract, agreed to no terms and conditions"

                Yes you did by accessing their content and using their services. Look up implied contract! Also, you obviously don't sign any contract when shopping in a mail or taking a taxi either. Yet you don't argue that you don't own neither the shop nor the driver anything for the goods you've taken and the services that have been rendered to you. Or do you?

                " I have simply chosen not to view all the content I find irrelevant"

                Ads are not part of the content, but your "payment" in return of the former. If you're denying payment for good and services you voluntarily consumed, you're committing theft and fraud.

                "Anyway FF22, we will never agree so I'm leaving it now - with my ad blocker still very much switched on."

                Weird way of expressing being too thickheaded to accept and too ignorant to understand valid and sound arguments.

                1. veti Silver badge

                  Re: Ok...

                  FF22: you need to look up what "theft and fraud" are, because you're throwing the terms around very freely, and I don't believe any reputable legal authority would support your usage in this context.

                  A "website" is a resource that the website owner has chosen to make public. Nobody forced them to put those files on a server, connect it to the internet and let people request that content via HTTP.

                  Any web browser has (and has always had) the technical capability to be selective about what it downloads, and - separately - about what it processes and displays. (Indeed, that's arguably what a web browser is for.) I remember browsing without images, just to save on bandwidth - this was long before ads became the scourge they are now. Just because a picture or a script is served to my computer, doesn't in any way obligate my browser to show or run it. Anyone who doesn't understand this - really shouldn't be trying to run a website, because that's like trying to drive a car without knowing what a "road" is.

                  As for those hardworking website owners who deserve to be compensated - there are plenty of options available to them. The only model I won't support is the one where they use scripts to download material from other domains.

                  1. BongoJoe

                    Re: Ok...

                    FF22. I am speaking as a potential viewer of a site and I have a monthly broadband limit (due to living on the road and feed my internet usage via SIMS in dongles) so I have to consider the bandwidth that I consume.

                    I pay for this bandwidth and I see it as theft, not fraud (I can't work out how you come to this particular conclusion) when an advertiser throws a massive advert at me that is not needed. Now if I agreed to receive, via the post office, a letter from an advertiser the next morning and pay on delivery for the advertisement in return for browsing the site then that's one thing. It's another when the doorbell rings and the postman shows me a large parcel which took days to deliver and weights as much as a small racehorse and is going to cost me considerably more for delivery.

                    Yes, you're right. That is fraud.

                    Not too many years ago the web was full of pages with no adverts. Or if they were then they were just simple jpeg files dished up by the host's server with a simple URL behind it. And even these came in well after the web was up and running.

                    Now you are telling me that there's an implied Terms of Service which says that we have to receive this data whether we want them or not. And that we have to have installed any malware because you say so.

                    When I pop into a newsagents and buy a magazine I walk three steps outside to the nearest bin and, holding the outside cover pages together I give the thing a bloody great shake and all the blow in advertising crap goes straight into the bin. I will read the proper adverts in the magazine as a rule (usually they are the most interesting bits in there) but never the add ins because they are an annoyance particularly as I have to dispose of them because living on a motorhome exploring the country that I live in I don't particularly want badly targeted adverts which offer a stair lift, or a Parker biro if I sign up for some funeral insurance.

                    These advertisers have ruined it for themselves and there was no ToS that I agreed to when buying the magazine saying that I had to accept these blow-ins.

                    No-one here is wanting no advertising.

                    We are just wanting proportional advertising which:

                    - doesn't sling adverts that autoplay,

                    - have sound,

                    - block the page one's reading,

                    - potentially serve malware, and

                    - doesn't report back with our reader profile to anyone.

                    If you wish to bang on about a ToS then that list is what we expect to see in a site's ToS because as a server of a web site and you wish to deal with me then, equally, you have implied agreement to these terms. None of those items in that list above are excessive and all are reasonable.

                    So,

                    1. BongoJoe

                      Re: Ok...

                      FF22:

                      One question, if I may: How would you recommend people browsing the web protect themselves from maladvertising?

            2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Brought it on themselves

              "And I also know that ad networks are generally more secured and run by more professional people than are websites, in general."

              So how do you account for malvertising? Or is it your contention that these professional people are securely serving it up deliberately?

            3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Brought it on themselves

              "Theft is theft"

              Indeed. If I get pestered by an advert I'm less likely to buy whatever's being pushed at me. Less as in if it's something I need I'll find someone else to sell it. But the advertising network will have take good money from whoever's trying to sell it in order to achieve this end. So who's stealing here? Clue, who is it that ends up with the money in their pocket?

              1. FF22

                Re: Brought it on themselves

                "Indeed. If I get pestered by an advert I'm less likely to buy whatever's being pushed at me. "

                You obviously have no clue how advertising works. And just because of your ignorance you're even more prone to be affected and even fooled by it, than Average Joe. In this way I can totally understand of you being so afraid of getting in touch with advertisement. Fears of the weak mind, you know.

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: Brought it on themselves

                  "You obviously have no clue how advertising works."

                  No, it's you who obviously have no clue how I work.

                  I know very well how advertising works in my case. It pisses me off. Specifically it pisses me off about the businesses who think they're entitled to my time and attention.

                  I've spent far too many decades on this Earth being pestered by idiots who think I should suck it up.

                  Companies who thought they knew how advertising works but didn't get the message have lost my business. They thought that as I was their customer they were entitled to pester. My solution was simple. I'm no longer a customer.

                  Companies I haven't dealt with who think they know how advertising works but haven't got the message try to pester. I'll never be their customer.

            4. Alumoi

              Re: Brought it on themselves

              @FF22

              "Theft is theft, no matter what your reasons for doing it are. And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft."

              Did somebody forced you to put your 'content' on the web?

              Did somebody forced you to make the said 'content' avaialble for free (as in not behind a paywall)?

              No? Well then, you just made it available for anybody FOR FREE. So it's not theft.

              Oh, you were expecting to gain some monetary compensation from ads? The sell ads, not 'content'.

        5. Kurt Meyer

          Re: Brought it on themselves

          @FF22 - You seem to be familiar with moronic arguments.

      2. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Reader View

        You're very much mistaken about advertisers and Reader View. It's caused a major storm in the ad industry and brought to a head what has been a background issue forva while.

        Fairly sure there's been coverage in the FT, BBC and The Register recently.

    3. John Bailey

      "Don't most users who use these, 'ad-blockers', just want a simple solution that stops them seeing adverts? How many of them care about funding the websites?"

      Quite a few of us actually.

      Ruins the simplified world view I know, but such is reality.

      I don't mind ads in moderation. I use a few sites that rely on them to offer a service I use, so ad-blocking off.

      I object to ads with a little content hidden among them. So click bait sites get used with blocking set to kill.

      "Most" people are in fact, individuals.

  5. Stuart 22

    Adjust your /etc/hosts

    The way to go? No external DNS lookup, no ad naughties downloaded. Just a much faster browser of your choice, clean websites and no third party to sell you out for money. Cut'n'Paste domain lists are only a Google search away ...

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Adjust your /etc/hosts

      Doesn't work well. Block Google Analytics for example, and about a third of the Web becomes unusable because each page is loaded with Javascript that waits for Google to respond to it before proceeding. After about three minutes your page will eventually load having timed out waiting for the reply, only to put you through it a moment later when you click on the next link on the page.

      1. Stuart 22

        Re: Adjust your /etc/hosts

        Then don't block GA! Nobody is forcing you. This is surely no reason to not block ad slinging domains/subdomains?

        Or get a better list. I have a beautiful ad-free life with much faster page loads and no 3 minute delays. Would you have preferred I'd kept quiet about it?

  6. martinusher Silver badge

    Seems like a sensible approach

    My beef with modern websites is that there's so much crap on there that many sites are becoming unusable unless you've got a state of the art system. Think about it -- you need a supercomputer just to look at a web page. The problem is that advertising needs information, the web is not designed to yield it efficiently so the result is a whole pile of badly designed and coded script workarounds, all looking for that edge to get that information. This not only clags up the computer and its network link but those exploits advertisers need to get their data are also exactly what malware droppers are looking for. (Two sides of the same coin?) This browser seems like an honest approach; you can't stop people from monetizing content but you can stop them from screwing up your system with the latest attempt to infiltrate it.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. DougS Silver badge

    I would give it a try once its stable

    But I really wish they'd used Firefox as the base instead of Chrome.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I would give it a try once its stable

      "But I really wish they'd used Firefox as the base instead of Chrome."

      I guess you don't remember why he left Mozilla in the first place.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/08/mozilla_anti_gay_marriage_boycott/

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: I would give it a try once its stable

        Unless he was forced out by Mozilla's board, I don't see what one has to do with the other.

  8. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Maybe I wasn't reading properly

    but I failed to see any mention of scripts... when a page requires a list of scripts that doesn't fit on the screen just to show content, there's something wrong with the system.

    1. Alistair Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

      when a page requires a list of scripts that doesn't fit on the screen just to show content, that becomes a site I block completely

      FTFY.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

        Even if it's the ONLY source of something important like an obscure device driver?

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          If that is the case, you have to ask yourself if that driver is important enough to risk the integrity of your system.

          I wouldn't, even if I had to buy another equipment. On the other hand, I have no equipment with drivers that obscure.

        2. Alistair Silver badge
          Windows

          Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

          @ Charles 9

          I generally don't have that sort of issue - my drivers tend to come from repos, not websites.

          With *work* stuff, we've enough equipment on the floor that has proprietary hardware that I've got repos for the linux hosts and ISOs for the windows boxen (cough) that are falling into my lap.

          If the *driver* site you are visiting has $h177ons of javascript, and whales of ads, you aren't downloading a driver, you're downloading toolbars, adware, malware and crap that you will have to moan about.

        3. Kurt Meyer

          Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

          Charles, when I'm in need of a device driver, I go to the manufacturer's site. I avoid places such as driverguide.*** like the plague.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

            And if the manufacturer no longer exists? That's what I mean by obscure. it does what you want like nothing else does, but it's old and the official source no longer exists.

            1. Kurt Meyer

              Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

              Charles, I agree with you. If the manufacturer no longer exists, then I get the driver where I can.

              I don't have any gear that old/obscure, but I wish you luck with yours.

              Cheers

      2. Jos V

        Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

        Alistair. Here's something fun to try. Go to www.google.com. Right-click -> view page source. Run!

        1. Alistair Silver badge
          Windows

          Re: Maybe I wasn't reading properly

          @ Jos V

          While I'll agree that google's homepage is a horrendous mess of code, that is, when noscript is running and *blocking*, exactly one script. Not a list. And search still works rather well.

          I'm referring to the moments when you have 45 different sources involved in getting one webpage to load and *work*

  9. Unbelievable!
    Thumb Down

    Erm.. so it just serves users data to ad providers automatically? No exception? That is Brave!

    As Dragons Den advisors would say:

    "Let me tell you where I am...."

  10. nilfs2

    Looks like a great idea...

    ...but how long until websites start blocking Brave users and the sue shitfest hits? That's why we can't have nice things

    1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

      Re: Looks like a great idea...

      So you're saying we need something that controls the user agent string? I think there's something for that.

    2. John Bailey

      Re: Looks like a great idea...

      "...but how long until websites start blocking Brave users and the sue shitfest hits? That's why we can't have nice things"

      About the same time as they do this to all the other blocking service operators..

      So probably NEVER.

      And yes. We can have nice things.

      An ad agency has no standing to sue me, or the ad blocking service for anything. Nobody is obliged to download advertising. And any site that bans blocker users ends up with fewer customers.

      So hardly anybody does.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Looks like a great idea...

        More than you think because although fewer they at least pay the bills unlike all the other leeches. Or would you rather 90% of the Internet switch to paywalls that demand your credit card? And leaving the Internet is less of an option as print sources shut their doors. Finally, while one could go without information, many would also point to a lower standard of living compared to today.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Looks like a great idea...

          "they at least pay the bills"

          But don't you think there ought to be a better way for sites to pay their bills than letting the advertising industry poke their fingers into visitors' eyeballs and ears and letting the scum of the internet have a go at pwning visitors' PCs?

          Has it really come to this?

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: Looks like a great idea...

            Yes, it has. It's either this or paywalls, which web surfers ALSO balk at.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Looks like a great idea...

        The number of sites that get a bit 'uppity' when they detect that you are using AdBlock is increasing every day.

        From memory Forbes just does not work any more.

        As someone who hates ALL forms of advertising (yes I spent time working in the AD Industry in pre-internet days) I won't buy anything advertised to me on TV or via a web-page. If fact I often go out of the way to buy stuff from companies that don't advertise to me.

        I do subscribe to a few (non-commercial) sites that rely on advertising but get blocked by my blanket ban on anything from Google etc.

        For those sites that basically tell you to 'fuck off' because you are using tools like Adblock, NoScript etc I have a VM that gets used for them. All browsing is done via a proxy in Germany or Spain or Italy or Manchester etc.

        Once I'm done with it, the VM gets overwritten with the clean version. No browser history, contacts or anything that can give the advertisers a clue about the real me.

        As 'Tommy' says, 'Can you see the real me?' No and I want it to stay that way as long as possible.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Looks like a great idea...

          "Once I'm done with it, the VM gets overwritten with the clean version. No browser history, contacts or anything that can give the advertisers a clue about the real me."

          I hate to see what'll happen when someone develops a working hypervisor attack and uses it to break your method and see the real you.

  11. Michael Thibault

    How is it possible...

    that the 0.7 version has no history and no bookmarks provision, when the idea is to make money shilling information derived from the user's browsing history?

    Anyway, feature-freeze, please. Team this up with a router-resident hosts file and... go nuts.

    1. BasicChimpTheory

      Re: How is it possible...

      Just because there is no history item in the menu does not mean that history is not being recorded (and shared).

      I often wonder if similar is true when you wipe your history from within other browsers.

  12. x 7

    I'm worried that its based on Chromium.........too close to Groogle for my liking

  13. joed

    nope

    there's nothing better than a browser with cert store separate from the OS. staying with FF/Pokemon

  14. wsm

    Google product, privacy

    Am I missing something?

  15. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Nice Idea

    I like the idea of a browser with built in ad blocking. However some site (Forbes you slimes) will pitch a hissy if ads are blocked. But then I do not visit Forbes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nice Idea

      "We see you have Adblock installed... this site requires you to..."....

      I don't require this site :)

  16. Tom 64

    Not sure about the math there..

    3.7% of the browser market is around 10 million users?

    That would mean a total of 270 million people using browsers...

  17. AegisPrime
    Paris Hilton

    YTS?

    Couldn't they afford to hire a grown-up for their Senior Software Engineer for Privacy/Security???

    Paris because it looks like they'd be BFFs...

  18. Orwell

    I'll stick with Firefox, thanks. Firefox and ublock to be precise.

    I realize now that on Android, this is the only browser that offers a proper adblock add-on.

    Can't really understand why anyone would use any other browser, on any platform. And yes, I have tried most of them!

  19. Tom 7 Silver badge

    When I get a gigabit pipe with no limits

    I will be on the lookout for a browser that allows the page to load and then promptly disables any user interaction with any advertising shit and makes it invisible so the both the advertisers and I am happy.

    Cross domain restrictions will ensure there is no way of the advertisers knowing,

    1. Richard 126

      Re: When I get a gigabit pipe with no limits

      I would pay good money for a browser that did that. Dump all the ads and trackers to /dev/null and just show me the page.

      At present I use ABP+ and Adnauseum as far the advertisers are concerned I am interested in and click on every ad on every page I have opened in about the last 2 years.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: When I get a gigabit pipe with no limits

        I wouldn't be too surprised if ad slingers are able to use things like timing checks to distinguish between human clicks and bot clicks.

  20. Grade%

    A browser with

    An inline micro pay wallet that automatically pays sites a sliver of a penny equal to what they'd accrue from my ocular scans of their advertising would be interesting.

    I click in, the adverts shut off, and the tinkling of teeny tiny coins lets me know they've been paid and amuses me at the same time. :)

    Build that. That would be cool.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: A browser with

      Wouldn't that balk many people because that would involve exposing payment details to the Internet which means they can be STOLEN?

      1. Grade%
        Windows

        Re: A browser with

        My thought is that it would be a re-fillable container, separated from anything connected to myself. The handshake would be between the site and whomever I designate to handle that for me. A token goes out to the site that they then get reconciled at some other time. If my browser is compromised and the container stolen then, since we're dealing in micro payments, how much would I lose? Eight bits?

        Regardless, I hadn't thought of what you'd brought up since I don't particularly worry about it since I deal with PayPal, Amazon, etc, do online banking so to worry about my payment credentials being stolen seems, well, quaint. Not to be patronizing and not admit that that fear may have some validity, though with modern browsers and all that it seems pretty small.

        If we're talking about the users inclined to run with n+1 toolbars, well, we could ease their mind by selling them a fingerprint scanner to use when they fill the wallet and when they decide on a browsing session with it active.

        Lol, this is sounding pretty good. Whomever develops this, please cut me in for some shares. Please and thanks. :)

  21. David Pollard

    Virtualisation + handover container

    A while ago I've wondered about a scheme where holders of supermarket loyalty cards could swap them so as to confuse the data picture that was being compiled.

    What would be fun is a browser on similar lines, designed to be packed and handed from one user to another. Perhaps the number of swaps could be listed in a manner similar to playing conkers, thus adding value. Then users could boast about the camouflage rating of their latest browser. E.g. "I'm currently using a 23-swap Firefox with 58,000 adsite hits listed."

  22. Chronos Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Oh dear gods, no!

    They keep the tracking stuff in one central location? Jesus unicycling Christ, that's even worse than what we have now. For a start, you just *know* that stuff is going to be slurped to death by everyone with five eyes and that's before it becomes a one-stop shop for every creepy bastard on the web.

    No thanks. I'll keep maintaining my own defences, I think.

    Oh, and lions aren't brave. They're just hungry and driven by instinct when something made of meat wanders by.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Personally if I find ads to be intrusive, follow the mouse round the screen, play videos, make noises follow me across sites etc...

    Then I will take great pains to find out which adserver served that particular ad to me if I can't find out by looking at the page info from the browser I will spend hours looking at the code for the page or examining the network traffic until I find the server.

    Then I will add that server to my hosts file directed to 127.0.0.1

    If they won't play nice then f*ck 'em is my attitude, this is my machine not theirs.

    I realise some sites rely on the ad revenue they get from serving ads and providing those ads aren't intrusive that's fine, if the advertisers start thinking that putting their ads on my machine is a right and not a privilege then they'll get blocked.

    Sorry to the sites that need the revenue, get your advertisers sorted out and there won't be a problem, until then my machine, my rules

  24. IvoryT

    Brave's own website includes advertising tracking ...

    The website https://www.brave.com/ hits you with two bits of code running in the background: Chartbeat and Doubleclick advertising (according to Ghostery). So looks like even their own website would load faster in Brave than than in other browsers because that code would be stripped out.

  25. Tree

    Upright and trustworthy

    Always get stuff from those with impeccable morals. Much more trustworthy than the blokes who forced him out of Mozilla because of his political and religious view. Use Pale Moon instead of Firefox. Not evil.

  26. shovelDriver

    New (?) Browser Concept?

    Sounds as if they're describing Ghostery. The Android version is great at stripping out the unneeded parts of the web. The IE and Firefox and Chrome addins seem to also work well. If they could only provide the user a means of saving, printing, emailing the reports it creates . . .

  27. Asterix the Gaul

    Whenever I get junk mail from businesses,political org's,'Holy Joe's','charities' et'c put in my letter box, I ALWAYS pick it up & without even looking at it put it into the 'Recycle Bin'.

    I do not ask them to post me their rubbish,I do not ask for it,I do not want it & I am 99.9% sure that no one else does either.

    The same is true of our computers, I regard ad's as junk & I think that either it should be stopped by law or the companies concerned should be made to pay me a financial penalty for depositing rubbish on my property.

  28. Captain Badmouth
    Thumb Up

    I was quite happy with Opera 12...

    Until they changed it with the chrome engine. Now I see that one of the Opera founders has started Vivaldi, so will have to give that a look-over. If it gets to the sort of flexibility of Opera 12, I'm in.

    Anybody here tried it?

    https://vivaldi.com/story

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019