No point in using it.
1 Like
Works on my machine^â˘.
In fact, for a very casual and general browsing, I have found Lockdown Respondus Browser to be very good. Content blocking and resistance to fingerprinting are clearly above-average. In addition, good
Privacy policy :
- Collect as little personal information as possible. We aim to collect only the personal information needed to ensure we can offer excellent products and services.
- Be transparent with the information we collect. We want our users to understand what information Respondus collects and what we plan to do with it.
- Limit the sharing of customer information. We limit the sharing of customer information and provide our users with visibility into the few situations where personal information may be shared or disclosed to organizations outside of Respondus.
- Build and maintain safe products & services. We work hard to provide users with a safe and trustworthy place to interact with Respondus, our services, and our partners. Security is always a top priority when it comes to gathering, storing and using personal data.
- Allow users to easily contact us. Our company is built upon trust and relationships with users. Whether your concern is related to privacy, security, or a service we offer, a real person from our staff will respond to you in a prompt manner
Just joking, donât use it
1 Like
For Android I use Quetta browser. It works smooth, supports browser extensions (such as ublock) and has some privacy options. Itâs a fairly new browser that gets updated on a regular basis.
For Windows I use both Iridium browser and Mullvad.
Whatsup with people and these garbage browsers? Never saw them before, and now they are being mentioned multiple times.
1 Like
I use the following in order of preference and frequent use:
Desktop (Windows)
Brave: I donât need to block elements such as newsletter notices or annoyances, as those on Firefox using uBlock Origin do, since I really donât care and it doesnât bother me.
Firefox w/ Arkenfox: I use this as a fallback, or for logging into sites like this forum. Yes, I could do that on Brave, but I want to keep what I do on both browsers separate. A key difference is that I use uBlock Origin Lite, rather than uBlock Origin, although there seems to be some issues with the former currently.
Mullvad: For generic searches, reading information, researching for information so I can respond to queries like this, and the like.
Tor Browser: I somewhat use it for the same purposes as Mullvad, especially for anonymity.
Android (Plastic Premium Galaxy)
Tor Browser: Since I donât use my Galaxy frequently, as Iâm almost always on desktop, I mainly use Tor browser unless I need to sign in. Thus, I use Brave as a secondary browser.
Brave: I use this very similarly to desktop, except I donât add exceptions since I canât. (Itâs either clear everything or manually clear what you want.) I simply just clear everything and deal with the inconvenience.
Differently to desktop, I use this also when Iâm impatient with Tor Browser speeds, such as using Invidious on a .onion site, I just use it on Brave.
Mulch: I use this for sites I can safely stay logged into, like Cryptee.
1 Like
Anyone who mentions âPrivacyâ and âA browser with AI adblockingâ should go straight to jail.
Also, curiosity got the better of me and I looked up this âcompanyâ which is less 10 months old, and itâs sufficiently hard to find any information for them. Totally not a shady company and an attempt to lure people into installing it.
1 Like
I hope this post helps you and others form an informed opinion on this subject.
This post is about non-stable versions of Brave, Firefox and Chrome browsers. If you arenât interested on that, please skip this wall of text.
TLDR: Beta, Alpha, Nightly, Testfligh, Dev, Canary and other non stable versions of browsers are generally not recommended due to less security guarantees with them and also due to usual extra telemetry enabled in non stable browser versions. You can sometimes disable the extra telemetry of non stable browser versions completely or partially, but even then such browsers donât provide any significant advantage compared to stable browser versions.
TLDR 2.0: Use normal browser versions if you want the most privacy and security.
Brave browser:
Brave Software Inc. (the company behind the Brave browser) addresses the privacy and security implications of its beta and nightly versions in the following documents (the Dev version is also mentioned, but I think thatâs an old version of Brave that doesnât exist anymore, at least I canât find any link to download it anywhere):
The relevant sections of Braveâs privacy policy:
⢠Browser Privacy Policy | Brave;
⢠Browser Privacy Policy | Brave.
The Beta and Nightly versions come with more analytics enabled by default, and, from my interpretation of Braveâs privacy policy, you can partially opt-out of them if you want to (read the privacy policy for more details, the parts that address this are faster to read than this post, and explain this better). Also, Brave Software Inc. doesnât maintain any promises about Braveâs privacy and security when you use the Beta or Nightly versions (better described by Brave on the GitHub link I sent above, really fast to read).
Firefox:
Mozilla, the organisation behind Firefox, claims the following in its Firefox Privacy Notice â Mozilla (I copied the only relevant part):
Mozillaâs pre-release versions of Firefox (which are distributed through channels such as Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition and TestFlight) are development platforms frequently updated with experimental features and studies. In addition to the data collection described in this Privacy Notice, these versions by default may send certain types of web activity and crash data to Mozilla and in some cases to our partners. Any data collection or sharing adheres to our Firefox data collection policy and we will always be transparent and provide you with controls.
For more details of what kinds of analytics can be enabled by default when using Firefox Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition or TestFlight, look at the âEligibility for Default on Data Collectionâ section of the Data Collection - MozillaWiki entry, more specifically at the Category 3 âStored Content and Communicationsâ.
I wanted to find some information more specific to what extra data is collected by Mozilla and how to opt-out of that exact data collection when using Firefox Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition or TestFlight, but I didnât find any more information about that provided by Mozilla. In my opinion, they should be more clear and specific about this, or am I missing something?
Google Chrome:
Last and worst privacy wise, Google Chrome has some official documentation about its release channels:
https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel/
As expected, Google isnât very specific about what data is collected when using other release channels of Chrome compared to the stable release channel, neither about how (or if) you can opt-out of that data collection.
The best I found was this (first link):
By default, Canary reports crashes and usage statistics to Google (you can deactivate this feature).
And this (first link, also applies to stable Chrome):
Metrics
If the setting to help improve Chromeâs features and performance is enabled (chrome://settings/syncSetup?search=improve) then Chrome can automatically monitor and send anonymous metrics to the Chrome backendâsuch as memory usage, page load times, or the usage of a browser feature.
Chrome uses metrics to check performance, stability, and for unexpected behavior. This mechanism can also be used with field trials to compare metrics for users who have a new feature activated, and the control group of those who donât. That way, if a problem occurs, Chrome engineers can turn off the new feature while theyâre working on a fix.
This sound like Chrome metrics, independent of the release channel.
Warning:
All the information I shared with you so far is based in documentation and resources from first-party sources, which means I am trusting Braveâs official resources about the Brave browser, Mozzilaâs about Firefox and Googleâs about Google Chrome.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies carry legal importance, so I find it unlikely that any of this productâs Terms or Service and Privacy Policies are lying directly to their (few) readers, such lies are more likely to occur in marketing materials (this is general advice, not specific to Google, Brave Software Inc. or Mozilla).
Third-party reviews:
For a third-party review of some privacy and security protections and features that come enabled by default with different beta/nightly browsers (and stable versions of those browsers too), the following website is the best resource I know of:
PS.: The maintainer of privacytests.org works for Brave, although he created and published the website many months before starting to work for Brave and, in my opinion, he is very transparent about this in the websiteâs about page.
Source: Open-source tests of web browser privacy
Congratulations! 
If you read and understood all of this, have a nice day and share feedback about this post, whether positive or negative (specially negative, itâs more urgent to improve wrong/misleading information/advice than to receive an heart reaction emoji, although those are also appreciated).
3 Likes
lol Why did you specifically need Mullvad to read the post I made on this forum?
Take a look again.
Mull over Firefox Focus?
Yes. See: Browsers - DivestOS Mobile
1 Like
Mull is also recommended by Privacy Guides in the Mobile browsers page, not Firefox Focus or Firefox for Android.
In case you end up using Mull, I recommend reading the above link so that you use Mull in the best possible way, or at least so you are better informed about Mull, its advantages, weaknesses and other things to take into account.
2 Likes
Yet Techlore recommends Firefox Focus over Mull, and privacytests.orgâs open-source tests shows that Focus has more green ticks overall.
If youâre going to use Focus, you should instead use Klar.
Please also be aware that Mull does not have any proprietary code, while both Firefox & Focus/Klar do.
because it clears on close.
Set âclear on quitâ in Mull and youâll get all the same green ticks.
9 Likes
Yet they give no reason for it 
. They also seem to recommend Onion browser and Brave for iOS, when safari with multi-hop is the clear better choice. Doesnât seem like they actually know much about most tools they have, outside of FOSS = good, Corporate = bad. They recommend fdroid, exodus, lineageOS, SearX, mySudo, bleachbit, etc. yet present no reasons for recommending subpar, and sometimes worse tools. Unfortunate. I wouldnât put too much store to it.
@SkewedZeppelin has already clarified why that is.
Highly offtopic
I would advise against taking most Privacy YouTubers seriously, especially since their income is dependent on extracting money/views from less aware privacy enthusiasts, thus tying their economic existence to selling fear/hype. If you are looking for credible YouTubers for informational reasons, Naomi (NBTV) would perhaps be my only recommendation, only because she cites every single source she talks about. Others either push unverified info, or are too limited in their coverage. Stick to what experts say, follow them through their blogs, mailing lists, social media, and forums.
4 Likes
Just some notes:
If you read both Mull and Firefox/Focus recommendation descriptions, you will notice that it gives Mull credit for having better security and privacy defaults than Firefox and Firefox Focus on Android, as well as hardening that canât be achieved when using normal Firefox or Firefox Focus on mobile.
Firefox/Focus description:
Firefox doesnât have the best defaults, reserving maximum privacy & security through hardening the browser. (Limited on mobile) An attractive reason to use Firefox is itâs an alternative to the Chromium monopoly.
Mull description:
Mull is the closest thing to a pre-hardened Firefox on Android. It brings many features from the Tor Uplift Project, the arkenfox project, & more! It is recommended to install âuBlock Originâ.
As to the favorite check mark being attributed to Firefox/Focus instead of Mull, I disagree with Techlore in that regard and I donât have any way to defend that choice.
1 Like
As for PrivacyTests.org, it only tests browsers under their default configurations, that is a limitation that people should keep in mind when checking that websiteâs test results.
Quoting form the websiteâs about page (emphasis mine in the second paragraph):
How the tests work
To understand and compare the privacy characteristics of popular web browsers, each browser is subjected to the same suite of rigorous automated tests. Each privacy test examines whether the browser, on default settings, protects against a specific kind of data leak.
1 Like
Personally, I would never recommend Techlore as a resource for anyone, but I do admit it did help start my privacy journey.
I would use Mull over Firefox Focus, since you can install uBlock Origin and itâs hardened. Firefox Focus has literally no ad blocking which is quite an important feature.
4 Likes
It does.