[anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse

Serge,

This thread is not about safebrowsing... - there is no problem/abuse
with safebrowsing as the local list is compared by the browser to the
visited URL.

So: Safebrowsing is fine (No Abuse, afaik)

I understand that you, and many others, thought that this post is about
existing technology. No, it is "new" tech, that Google has introduced
in only one version of it's Chrome product. Please do read my initial
post?

And yes, http anyone can see (it is not encrypted) 


It is good that we are discussing all this, as it helps even tech's to

understand why the ABUSE by GOOGLE in this thread, is so dangerous and

why it is so important

What Google is now selling as "NEW technology: is in fact ABUSE and it

threatens world freedom as them doing this will "force" other browsers
to do the same in order to deliver faster speeds to their own users


On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 09:45:03 +0100
Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

> Dear Ac & Fi
> 
> That was what I was replying to Fi's comment:
> 
> > If opera (like chrome, edge or firefox) check the URL to see if it
> > is "dangerous" (a phishing URL etc) then that is logged on their
> > end, when it checks the database to see if the link has been
> > flagged.  
> 
> 
> Re:
> > It is a simple technical fact that ISP's etc - Do Not Have, receive
> > or are able to read the actual URL. - Please do see the https
> > protocol itself, for additional information.  
> 
> Read my answer again: It said they can see it if it is http, but not
> if it is https.
> 
> Would you agree?
> 
> Re Fi's Question:
> > Please provide your source of information that chrome browsers rely
> > on a local blacklist.  
> 
> See https://blog.chromium.org/2012/01/all-about-safe-browsing.html
> 
> You can verify this yourself by looking at browser trafic with a MITM
> setup, e.h. using sslsplit
> 
> 
> Best
> Serge
> 
> 
> 
>