Wikipedia Discussion On Iron Browser

For my original Iron Browser blog – see here.

So I got two referral hits from the discussion page for Iron Browser. It seems that someone there wants a “conflict” section explaining that Iron doesn’t actually provide anything that Chromium doesn’t, and nothing of substance compared to Chrome. A really great endeavor.

I’m not optimistic it will be let through. Why? The discussion page is clearly bias.

UPDATE: I posted on the discussion page. I talked to someone there about getting proper sources up. I’m obviously not reputable but my sources are – the issue is that because none of my sources explicitly mention the Iron browser they can’t be used to discredit the browser. Essentially Iron says X and the reputable source says ‘X is false’ but because the reputable source doesn’t say “X is false and therefor Iron is making a false claim’ it can’t be linked – Wikipedia doesn’t allow that type of connection, which they refer to as ‘synthesis’. I think that’s idiotic but I don’t really care – I’ve had thousands of hits on my Iron page so even though users who go to Wikipedia are essentially getting lied to via proxy there are many who have come to my blog and gotten the facts.

To quote:

“Scam” is not accurate

I’ll be reverting some of User:98.207.42.24‘s edits that basically littered this article with the same statement over and over, about how a self-published source compared Chromes and Irons source code and concluded that Iron is a “scam” because of the fashion in which Iron sets privacy values (hard-coded instead of through a user interface).

I have several problems with this:

  • For someone that doesn’t want to do research about Google Chrome’s privacy faults before starting up the browser (even for the first time), Iron is helpful. And according to Irons website, that is what it was created for.
  • The source is not a reliable source.
  • The source is not timestamped so we have no idea when it was created and what has changed since then on Iron and Chrome.
  • Iron disables RLZ, Chrome doesn’t.

As far as I can tell Iron was made for comfort and it’s not ment to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

That’s from user Bitbit. Taking a look at user Bitbit’s page we see he’s obviously anti-Google (there’s a banner dedicated to disliking Google). His bias is obvious because his post is a bit silly, I checked his page because reading his post it seemed clear. I’ll explain why in this post! I want it clear that, unlike my post about the Iron developer, I’m not trying to be insulting here. The Iron developer is throwing out crapware/ scareware whereas this is just one user with his opinions. I’m not going to attack him or his opinions, only explain why his post on the matter is invalid. So many people have fallen for the Iron browser, I don’t blame any of them, and I’ve seen so many users on other forums read the information and immediately state that they’re moving to another browser.

Let’s take this one step at a time.

For someone that doesn’t want to do research about Google Chrome’s privacy faults before starting up the browser (even for the first time), Iron is helpful. And according to Irons website, that is what it was created for.

For someone who doesn’t want to do research? Well… if you’re a user who winds up on Iron’s page it should be obvious that you were looking for a more private alternative to Chromium or Chrome. So the defense that Iron isn’t purporting itself as a more private alternative, only one with a more private default configuration is fairly weak. Furthermore, the Iron developers claims are disingenuous – one really clear example is the “URL Tracker” feature,  a poor choice of name but the Iron developer makes it out to be a privacy issue when it is obviously not (you can read about this all in my original post). Therefor it is far more than a claim of “default configuration” because the developer has made claims that features removed are privacy violates when they are not.

  • The source is not a reliable source.
  • The source is not timestamped so we have no idea when it was created and what has changed since then on Iron and Chrome.

There are multiple sources available. I found many in my original blog post on Iron. Bitbit didn’t look for any, so naturally he didn’t find them. The information is out there, and I’ve put it all in one place to make things simpler.

Iron disables RLZ, Chrome doesn’t.

As I explained in my original post, RLZ is not a privacy issue. It also does not exist in Chromium.

As far as I can tell Iron was made for comfort and it’s not ment to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

If you look at the facts from my first post it should be clear that Iron was made for money. It is absolutely designed to fool people – the page is filled with lies.

[…], these are flat-out dry facts, not an opinion

Here are some absolute sourced facts that can be externally verified, and I didn’t go into in my original post. I suggest reading the first post for a full tear down of Iron.

The default installation of Iron contains a bookmark to the Iron forum. On this forum? Ads.

Image

And the default home page? Ads as well!

Image

On its own this is hardly damning. Ad-based software is perfectly fine. Where the issue lies is that this is software designed to make a profit and it does so by playing on users fears. Adware, Scareware, Scamware, all can easily be seen as fitting. In every case it’s a matter of a user being tricked, or scared, into using a software that makes money off of them while providing no actual benefit to that user.

So it’s my hope that Wikipedia does include a section that puts all of the information available in their article. I’ve made use of many sources and they’re free to verify it all. When you search “Iron Browser” on DuckDuckGo Wikipedia is in the result box and it’s the first thing many users will see – providing those users with all of this information is important, it’s what Wikipedia is for. I’ve sourced my original post thoroughly and redundantly. I hope the information in that post is put to good use.

Thanks to whoever said the nice words about the post on that Wikipedia article (no username). I appreciate that.

You can find my original post here: https://insanitybit.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/srware-iron-browser-a-real-private-alternative-to-chrome-21/