Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 70 Arrives With Option To Disable Linked Sign-Ins, PWAs On Windows, and AV1 Decoder (venturebeat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

Krystalo quotes a report from VentureBeat: Google today launched Chrome 70 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The release includes an option to disable linking Google site and Chrome sign-ins, Progressive Web Apps on Windows, the ability for users to restrict extensions' access to a custom list of sites, an AV1 decoder, and plenty more. You can update to the latest version now using Chrome's built-in updater or download it directly from google.com/chrome. An anonymous Slashdot reader adds: "The most anticipated addition to today's release is a new Chrome setting panel option that allows users to control how the browser behaves when they log into a Google account," reports ZDNet. "Google added this new setting after the company was accused last month of secretly logging users into their Chrome browser accounts whenever they logged into a Google website." Chrome 70 also comes with support for the AV1 video format, TLS 1.3 final, per-site Chrome extension permissions, TouchID and fingerprint sensor authentication, the Shape Detection API (gives Chrome the ability to detect and identify faces, barcodes, and text inside images or webcam feeds), and, last but not least, 23 security fixes.

53 comments

  1. I truly don't give a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's made by Google. Chrome will never be something good to use.

  2. Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That they would roll back an invasive feature. Color me dubious.

    1. Re:Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not quite rolled back. There are three possible changes they could have made:

      (a) entirely remove the code that does something special when visiting Google websites,
      (b) keep the code, but make it opt-in,
      (c) keep the code, but make it opt-out.

      They judged that the outcry was weak enough that they could get away with (c).

  3. Brought to you by by Sebby · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Privacy Rapists 1.0 (aka Google/Alphabet).

    I’ll pass.

    (Facebook is “Privacy Rapists 2.0”)

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:Brought to you by by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      All the way, even apologise afterwards, so they can set you up again, to rape you again and of course apologise again and on and on it goes. Want to stop the abuse, stop being Google's bitch, you have no choice but to walk away.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Brought to you by by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook need to be broken up. So does Apple.

      Sorry Microsoft, you no longer qualify as a monopoly.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    3. Re:Brought to you by by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Apple? I'm no fanboy, but why Apple?

      Do they dominate the market in anything?

      Seriously, their desktop market share is, what, 5-10%?

      Smart phones? Last I heard Android outsells iPhones by 10-1, worldwide.

      Maybe they charge an unreasonable amount for their hardware, but that hardly qualifies as a reason to butcher the company. You have alternatives in every market they are in.

    4. Re:Brought to you by by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So which browser do you use?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Brought to you by by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      How quick people are to forget Sony, AOL, Comcast, and Real Networks on privacy (list cut short because I'm both lazy and don't care enough to keep listing). Google and Facebook aren't even early enough into the game to be 10.0 . 1st and 2nd place currently, perhaps.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    6. Re:Brought to you by by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      I beg to differ. Microsoft is still very much a monopoly. There is no way they'd be able to get away with the bullshit they're pulling WRT Windows 10 if they weren't a monopoly.

      The only place they are noticeably losing on is anything internet infrastructure related. And that's cause they never really gained much of a foothold to begin with.

  4. So, I post something google doesn't like by Snotnose · · Score: 1, Troll

    I no longer lose gmail, g++ (whatever they called it), my google office files, and all other google related content? And my only recourse is a web thingie that humans never read?

    Doesn't matter. Soon as I heard they were disabling gmail and goffice (whatever it's called, never used it) when you said something they didn't like on their "platform" I switched to duckduckgo, thunderbird (thank you google for giving me IMAP/POP3 support), and LibreOffice. The only google services I use now are mail (via Thunderbird and IMAP/POP3) and driving (on my phone).

    While I have your attention, my laptop took a dump a couple days ago and can't be recovered (hard drive failure). Everything is backed up,I paid lots for my new laptop to be delivered tomorrow (wednesday), but I don't remember how I set up Thunderbird to download my gmail and let me deal with 2 accounts in a reasonable way (default gmail sux ass. Tagged messages as opposed to folders? Stupid beyond belief). You can save me 5 minutes of duckduckgo searches by providing a link in this thread. Yeah, I'm lazy :)

  5. Old, bad ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Had to look up exactly what PWAs are, and after reading a bit about them, this on feature alone means that I'll be uninstalling chrome or disabling updates.

    "Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are web applications that load like regular web pages or websites but can offer the user functionality such as working offline, push notifications, and device hardware access traditionally available only to native applications."

    We're just now finally getting rid of flash and all the security vulnerabilities it brought with it. If I want something to run locally with hardware access I will damn well install an executable myself. The last thing I want is some browser based solution loading up some web application and letting it escape the usual sandboxing that web apps belong in.

    1. Re:Old, bad ideas... by ledow · · Score: 1

      But...

      They don't. Not really. They are just the functions already available to Javascript etc. anyway.

      The "new" thing is offline caching, which is under browser control anyway. So you can load a web app when you're offline, like Google Docs already does.

      It's a new name for the same-old, from what I see. The examples are all just... web-apps. Sure, they may be WebAssembly, or use workers, pick up a local-cached NoSQL data from an online source, but there's nothing new about them.

      It's still subject to the browser security model, and you still need to jump through WebSockets hoops to actually transmit data across the network.

      This is poorly explained, granted, but I find no evidence that it's anything other than the existing Javascript etc. APIs exposed, and a generic term for using them all. There's no local-disk access, no direct hardware access (though if you have the right extensions you can do some data-passing... much like the existing Gemalto eSigner etc. extensions for Firefox / Chrome etc. let you access their smartcard reader - it requires software in your PC, an extension loaded, permission to do so, etc. and basically your browser is just passing off data to a "local" web server that acts upon it).

      There's nothing new here, or any more dangerous than... well... even a five-year-old browser had.

  6. Shame they work for Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Blink team does a fair bit of good, but it all gets drowned out because of what the Mothership demands. It would sure be nice if they could somehow be free of that baggage, and do what they really want to do. I'm just glad they're able to push as they are, because over the past year the Blink team has shown they're willing to break Blink to fix the web if they have to. The problem is always that Google is still running the show, so they screw it up faster than those who can fix it are able to fix it. And too many web devs are shockingly complacent these days, having never learned the lessons of the past and thinking their own failures and shortcomings are for someone else to fix. "Oh well"

  7. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's one overloaded option.

  8. Youtube by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or is Youtube not working?

    1. Re:Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems broken.

  9. Well Youtube is broken by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    I think Google is trying to kill adblockers. You know, ones that actually BLOCK ADS. Like Google's.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Well Youtube is broken by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it is broken on even machines that don't have adblocking enabled. It sucks that the only video site left is Youtube.

    2. Re:Well Youtube is broken by mentil · · Score: 1

      That's because the MAFIAA whacked all their competitors. Remember MegaVideo? They got an offer they couldn't refuse.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Well Youtube is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rumors are, google's working on their own ad blocker for chrome (ref: wsj 4/19/2017). so yea, yesterday's outage aside, they'd want to break all ad blockers... except the one or ones they bless themselves.

      the per-site control of extensions is probably the first step. now you have no excuse to not turn off extensions a, b, c, and z, when you visit site x and y. chrome 80-something will probably force that decision upon you.

  10. Tabs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring back the old look of tabs.

  11. Ya but... by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Yes, but YouTube is broken and my world is crashing. How do you break YT?

    1. Re:Ya but... by WCMI92 · · Score: 0

      Greed.

      Google is trying to break Adblock.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
  12. Google is evil by Socguy · · Score: 1

    Don't use Chrome on principal, don't use IE on principal and I've switched to duckduckgo for searches. Still stuck with gmail and occasionally a forced to use google maps. Google is now evil.

    1. Re:Google is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no problems using duckduck - but think you are stuck with gmail? There are plenty of alternatives to gmail! I have gmail for one reason only - password resets on android devices. Knowing that google reads gmail contents for ad purposes, I won't use it for any other purpose than communication with google. I have a mail account at work, and my ISP provides one at home.

      And google maps is easily replaced by openstreetmap. The world map is on their site, for reference. They provide snippets if you want a map on your own site. And there are apps (like osmand) for phones. You simply don't need google for maps.

    2. Re:Google is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try Pocketmaps. You can grab it from F-Droid.

  13. Re:Google Is To You As Kavanaugh Is To . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beah. Bart loves Beah. Google loves you.

  14. I finally switched from Firefox to Chrome. by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    I think I am switching back.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  15. Wow man youtube is fucking DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feeling even better about dumping a bunch of GOOG the other day! How can a major site like youtube be completely broken? WOW! Censormaster Pichai needs to fucking go! Actually let him stay and take Google all the way down, Google sucks!

  16. Glad I have Apple Music and not Youtube Red! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hella slammin' beats shall continue uninterrupted!

  17. Waterfox by Artemis3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try Waterfox and you won't regret it. Its a clean Firefox, also for Android.

    --
    Artix
    Your Linux, your init.
    1. Re:Waterfox by temcat · · Score: 1

      Waterfox does behave somewhat better than Firefox in some respects but not universally. I have to shut it down after hibernation all the time (sleep is OK).

  18. hold CMD + Q to quit? what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't I just hit cmd + q like every other app? I have to hold it? What in the fuck is this bullshit? I seriously am going to have to switch to a new browser. This sucks ass. Don't fuck with my OS behavior assholes!

    1. Re:hold CMD + Q to quit? what the hell? by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Have they done that on all platforms? Will the Windows version require you to hold Alt+F4 to exit? Is this just to make it harder to accidentally quit and lose your session when you mean to hit Cmd-W to close a tab/window, or is there something more sinister behind it?

    2. Re:hold CMD + Q to quit? what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Going to the menu and selecting "Chrome -> Quit Google Chrome" still works normally. I close the browser with cmd + q dozens of times a day. The amount of times I accidentally closed it is pretty much nil. Since, on MacOS the app close when you release cmd + q not on the down press this leaves the user in the awkward situation of looking at the app that was underneath Chrome with your fingers still pressing cmd + q making it feel like you're going to close that app when you release. This is really awful. Already started switch to Firefox.

    3. Re:hold CMD + Q to quit? what the hell? by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Apparently they did this before (over half a decade ago) and flip-flopped on it:
      https://productforums.google.c...
      https://www.lifehacker.com.au/...

    4. Re:hold CMD + Q to quit? what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From those links it looks like holding cmd and double tapping q works, but that's still weird because if you get in the habit of that then when you use some other app you will close two apps. Doesn't look like there's any way to shut it off in preferences either. Oh well, been wanted to switch away from Chrome for a while anyways. I guess today's the day.

  19. What's it with the versioning scheme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    70! C'mon.

    Have finde people over at Google not heard of this thing called Semantic Versioning? By bumping the major version for each minor update as they seem to do these days (and must have for quite some time - 70! You must be joking).

    Who are they trying to impress?
     

  20. It broke jSignature on touchscreens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly buggers

  21. Restrict extensions? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    the ability for users to restrict extensions' access to a custom list of sites

    To me that is the most interesting thing in there. Abusive extensions are an understated problem IMHO, more so than HTTP/HTTPS. It's a step in the right direction at least, although the biggest problem remains since extensions might 'need' wide permissions and nothing exists to stop them from abusing that.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Restrict extensions? by Elina_williams · · Score: 1

      The traffic generated by three expansions Chrome/Firefox adblockers Poper Blocker and Block Site, and Chrome mouse utility CrxMouse users noticed that something was odd. They were spying on the users using those extensions. That is the violation of the consumers' privacy. When contacted https://www.browsertechnicalsu... about the same, they denied whole thing.

  22. Revenue per device by tepples · · Score: 2

    Smart phones? Last I heard Android outsells iPhones by 10-1, worldwide.

    Last I checked (Q1 2018), the mean revenue per user for paid apps and in-app purchases was so much larger on Apple's App Store than on Google Play Store that it outweighed Android's larger user base: "$5.08 was generated per device with the App Store during Q1 compared to only $0.47 with the Play Store."

    You have alternatives in every market they are in.

    With the exception of the market for tools to develop smart phone applications. If you develop such an application on any computer other than a Mac, it will be Android exclusive, and Android users tend to be less willing to pay for apps than iOS users.

    1. Re:Revenue per device by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked (Q1 2018), the mean revenue per user for paid apps and in-app purchases was so much larger on Apple's App Store than on Google Play Store that it outweighed Android's larger user base: "$5.08 was generated per device with the App Store during Q1 compared to only $0.47 with the Play Store."

      With the exception of the market for tools to develop smart phone applications. If you develop such an application on any computer other than a Mac, it will be Android exclusive, and Android users tend to be less willing to pay for apps than iOS users.

      So your logic is that Apple should be broken up because its users pay more for apps? Because Android people (disclaimer: I am one) are cheap fuckers, Apple should get broken up?

      That some type of liberal logic?

      Android has more users and more apps, but the users are freeloaders so we should break up Apple...

      Okay there sparky............

    2. Re:Revenue per device by tepples · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that Apple ought to be broken up over this. I was claiming only that Android's larger user base tells an incomplete story.

    3. Re:Revenue per device by jpaine619 · · Score: 1
      Ah.. Yeah, that was a bit confusing..

      It's all good...

  23. Firefox by tepples · · Score: 1

    So which browser do you use?

    I feel disappointed by some of the systematic fact distortions I see on K. Rupert Murdoch's noise outlets. I wish I could fire Fox. Fortunately, Mozilla is working on both the browser side and the facts side of that equation.

  24. People who don't trust any script in the browser by tepples · · Score: 1

    There's nothing new here, or any more dangerous than... well... even a five-year-old browser had.

    Even a fifteen-year-old browser is too much for some, as scripts loaded from a third party can exfiltrate the viewer's interests to that third party. (Q4 2003 is around the time when Mozilla Application Suite and Safari adopted Microsoft's XMLHttpRequest, the X in AJAX.) The sentiment I sometimes see here and on SoylentNews is "I don't trust any script in the browser. Web documents ought to be static on the client, with interactivity limited to navigation, form submission, and CSS checkbox selectors. Applications needing more interactivity than that ought to be native, built on a multiplatform GUI library, and distributed as source code that I can audit (or hire someone to) and then compile and run myself."

  25. Vimeo, Dailymotion, Pornhub, and indie web by tepples · · Score: 1

    I know Vidme ran out of money, and Vimeo is kind of picky about what videos they accept from accounts that don't pay $240 per year for Pro. But last I checked, Dailymotion and the SFW section of Pornhub still existed, as did just putting .webm files on your website using the <video> element.

  26. Spying Add-ons by Elina_williams · · Score: 1

    The traffic generated by three expansions Chrome/Firefox adblockers Poper Blocker and Block Site, and Chrome mouse utility CrxMouse users noticed that something was odd. They were spying on the users using those extensions. That is the violation of the consumers' privacy. When contacted https://www.browsertechnicalsu... about the same, they denied the whole thing.