Citing the dangers of a digital world that thereatens to spill beyond the user's control, Mozilla has launched the Firefox Focus last Nov. 17. The company promised it will let the public use the internet without any trace, and it is only available to iPhones and other iOS devices.

New Private Browser

Firefox Focus is essentially a private browser that recalls Google Chrome's Incognito mode.

"Firefox Focus is set by default to block many of the trackers that follow you around the Web. You don't need to change privacy or cookie settings," Mozilla said in a blog post. "You can browse with peace of mind, feeling confident in the knowledge that you can instantly erase your sessions with a single tap — no menus needed."

Based on Mozilla's description, however, it seems that it might be offering an advanced private browsing in the Firefox Focus. Chrome's Incognito Mode does not prevent websites from tracking your activities.

"You aren't invisible," Chrome tells you when opening an Incognito window. "Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit."

Blocking Web Trackers

Firefox Focus blocks websites that are tracking visitors' activities, which also sets it apart from a VPN tool. According to Mozilla, its algorithm is designed to target web tracking technologies, and websites that rely on tracking will simply not work. If a user does not mind tracking or wants to go to a blocked website, Firefox Focus will direct him to Firefox or Safari.

It is important to note that there is a Firefox Focus serving as a Safari content blocker extension. With the introduction of a stand-alone Focus browser, that feature became an option within its range of functionalities. In its Settings menu, there is an option to integrate Safari and enable tracking blocker.

Like Chrome's Incognito browsing, Focus will erase all traces of the user's sessions when the app is closed.

Firefox Focus Interface

The user interface is another notable feature in the Firefox Focus. The options and elements are essentially barebones. Users, for instance, can only use one tab or essentially no tab because you only have the main Focus window. There are also no menus, ad popups, bookmarks and configuration options.

Some observers, however, found it strange that Mozilla has decided to use Yahoo as Firefox Focus' default search engine. The company has been involved in one of the largest data breaches to date. There is no way of changing the search engine yet, but Mozilla said that it will be offering more choices in the next update.

Focus On Speed

According to Mozilla, because Focus blocks website trackers and is not outfitted with all the features in conventional browsers, it is able to load pages faster.

There are those who could say that the Firefox Focus is at risk of being a mere appendage of a more full-fledged internet browser. Blocking web tracking technologies could make contents such as videos disappear, or they will simply not work. However, users can still do something about this. In the Settings menu, they can toggle the type of data that they want to block.

Author:  Chris Loterina

Source:  http://www.techtimes.com/

Categorized in Internet Privacy

The pledges in the Queen’s Speech to use the proposed Digital Economy Bill to empower consumers and protect citizens (and their children) in the on-line world need to be looked at in the context of a growing gulf between voters (whether as consumers or parents) and the lobbyists of the Internet industry. The latter are still hung up about the Snowden revelation that subsets of the data they hoover up might be made available to the NSA and GCHQ. The former are getting increasingly angry at the lack of attention being paid to protecting them against on-line abuse and fraud. Meanwhile Government and  Business continue to conspire to drive us all on-line, like sheep to be fleeced.

The main change in the five years since I wrote that blog is that on-line criminals now “trouser” over four times, estimates range from $450 billion to $1 trillion, the global spend on information security, around $100 billion. The long-standing vulnerabilities (some over 20 years old) that enable them to do so have not yet been addressed. It is 15 years since I predicted (paper for the 2001 conference to celebrate the 50 Anniversary of LEO, the first business computer) a period when confidence in the veracity of anything on-line would collapse. We are now entering that period.

A US Government survey indicates that nearly half of all Americans have not carried out a normal on-line task because of fears over privacy and security . Meanwhile the Belgian police have just issued advice to users not to use Facebook reactions if they value their privacy.  It appears that Americans share the fears of European indicated by the Vodafone survey on the trust gap between consumers and the globally and nationally dominant ISPs and Telcos on which I blogged yesterday. Hence the value of a Mayoral initiative to make London the safest place to do on-line business and the most dangerous place to attack: by taking the policing of the on-line world seriously and not just repeating awareness platitudes.

The battle for control over the Internet has as many dimensions as “net neutrality” has meanings but most public debate in the UK focuses on what are non-issues to most users. Meanwhile those (a mix of convenience and confidence in authenticity, accuracy, reliability, resilience, security and privacy) which will make or break the survival of current on-line business models are rarely debated.


I will give a few examples:

The debate over broadband speeds, alias response times and usability, is moving from nominal transmission speeds to the need for lobbyists and advertisers to use numbers that reflect the experience of most users: e.g. the mean or average speeds delivered at peak times – not the top decile based on 24 hour performance, including when almost everyone is asleep. We are seeing guidance on how users can speed up the transmission speeds between their domestic router and the laptops or smart phones that have replaced PCs – e.g. use cables or wireline to avoid interference from other electrical equipment, including that next door.

The most potent way of speeding up response time is, however to stop using cloud based services and remove/block the advertising bloatware (often also cloud based) that makes systems stop dead while waiting for unwanted (by the user) monitoring services to send information on transactions and patterns of behaviour to the 700 or so services that may have been installed as a result of using mainstream search engines, social networking or media services, let alone from consciously downloading “free” apps.


Alex Kidman recently summarised what is at stake for journalists in the ad-blocking war that no-one is winning in an excellent article in the Drum. Meanwhile those fighting that war rarely allow customers to chose which side they wish to fight, let alone how much they are willing to pay, which site, in order not have their machine infected with bloatware.

The problem is acute with regard to mobile users, who are paying for the extra time taken and therefore wanting to install blocking at a time when advertisers are wishing to use ever more intrusive and detailed bloatware to track location and usage and target their messages.

In consequence Google is seeking to work with leading ad-blockers to create “acceptable use” policies in order to head off a backlash that could seriously dent its revenues – but that raises the question of “acceptable to who”.

Then come the questions over the security or otherwise of the data collected by all those monitoring services and the responsibility of those collecting when, not just if, it is used to enable fraud and impersonation. Yesterday I attended an excellent briefing sessions on the current and emerging threats to on-line retail. I had not before realised how much more profitable (to criminals) it is to install ransomware than to to go to the effort of stealing pass words or credit card data which may changed as soon as the compromise is reported.

Will the adware installers be held liable for the ransomware piggybacking on their services? Would clearer liability cause them to rethink their policies. One of my fears with regard to the Digital Economy Bill and other measures in the Queen’s Speach is that they will, in practice, water down, rather than strengthen consumer protection.

Source:  http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/When-IT-Meets-Politics/The-battle-for-the-heart-of-the-Internet-advertisers-versus-users



Categorized in Online Research


World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.