About the "spyware watchdog" article on Pale Moon

[Moonchild]

Spyware isn't spyware because of the intents of the developer.

Dude, you couldn't be more wrong, but let's consult several renowned dictionaries to get an official definition, shall we?

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:

n. Software that secretly gathers information about a person or organization.
n. Any malicious software that is designed to take partial or full control of a computer's operation without the knowledge of its user.

from Wiktionary:

n. programs that surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user.

from WordNet 3.0:

n. computer software that obtains information from a user's computer without the user's knowledge or consent

from Merriam-Webster:

n. software that is installed in a computer without the user's knowledge and transmits information about the user's computer activities over the Internet


All of these definitions agree on the malicious nature of the software, i.e. the intentions with which the software was created.

When normal use involves disclosing user information to the author, it is spyware.

Please point me to the location or locations in our source code where normal use (i.e. browsing websites) discloses user information to the author (us).

[spyware_watchdog]

I really don't see how Chrome, or Firefox, or any other browser wouldn't be considered spyware by the definition he's giving. Those browsers do things that are a lot less privacy and security friendly. Then again, I've seen people use warped definitions of "security" such that they say it's not safe to avoid relying on Google's services to protect you online by sending them all your info.

There are other, articles on the website that discuss Chrome and Firefox. You can read them here:
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome.html
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

Dude, you couldn't be more wrong

The browser is sending information to you and third parties without properly disclosing it to users and providing easy to understand options to disable it, before it can take effect. The privacy policy is hidden at the bottom of the page and even still doesn't explain how to disable all of the stuff it talks about, so you have to find it for your self between the GUI and about:config. It's Spyware.

Nobody would be surprised about anything my article had to say if the browser would explain itself in the first place. If you actually put the privacy policy in the installer instead of hiding it at the bottom of the page, and let people make choices about these features, they wouldn't "discover" what Pale Moon is doing from my article. I could remove all discussion of these features, because they would be "opt-in" instead of "opt-out", no longer spyware.

[JustOff]

It's Spyware.

Do you really not understand that by continuing to insist on using a completely incorrect definition of spyware that you invented out of nothing, you are making further discussion absolutely pointless and just look ridiculous?

[Moonchild]

I'm done. The author clearly doesn't want to accept the definitions commonly accepted about what is spyware and what is not. Further discussion at this point has become completely moot.
If you download a web client, it will connect to parties on the internet. That is its very purpose for existing. It is not a "feature" that is optional (like the meta-data example of VLC; it will function just fine without that option enabled). So yes, it will contact one of my servers first thing to display the welcome page, and it will contact start.me to display the default home page. Every other web browser out there does something similar. Does that equal spying on the user? Nope. It equals performing the task it was designed for: retrieving and displaying web pages.

What's next, demanding I get a signed contract/waiver from every end user before they can use the browser? Get real. Oh and get a better hobby while you're at it. Have a good day