How complete is your Firefox history?

[mikeymikec]

24 here.

Reiterating instructions, just in case:
Firefox button > History
In the search box in the top right corner of the history/library window, type in //

 

[colonelciller]

If you want to point out how having an extensive browser history compromises my privacy, I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

:thumbsdown:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/use-sync-share-bookmarks-and-more-with-firefox-mobile
:thumbsdown:

 

[mikeymikec]

:thumbsdown:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/use-sync-share-bookmarks-and-more-with-firefox-mobile
:thumbsdown:

I'm not using Firefox Sync... any other points to make, specifically to do with the extensive Firefox history?

 

[colonelciller]

I'm not using Firefox Sync... any other points to make?

perhaps you didn't read the part of my previous post indicating that encouraging others to compromise privacy was a bit nutty. I'll go further with that and say that it is harmful.

Many people do and you're encouraging anyone who reads this to store history forever and provide a copy for datamining to the world at large.

nice snarky attitude btw ()

 

[mikeymikec]

perhaps you didn't read the part of my previous post indicating that encouraging others to compromise privacy was a bit nutty. I'll go further with that and say that it is harmful.

Yes, I read it the first time you posted it, but you're not providing any substance to your argument.

Many people do and you're encouraging anyone who reads this to store history forever and provide a copy for datamining to the world at large.

nice snarky attitude btw ()

I'm tired of the unsubstantiated claims that people keep throwing around. You've also flat-out accused me of undermining peoples' privacy and you've got absolutely nothing of substance to aid your accusation, which frankly I find a bit offensive.

When Google Chrome was released, it might have been a valid concern to wonder if Google are/were doing a lot of phone-home stuff and reporting back how people are using the software, but since then a fair number of people have looked at the software and found nothing particularly surprising. As a result I have no qualms about recommending it or seeing people using it. However, if people are still going around and saying "THEY'RE SPYING ON US!!1!", they're being wilfully ignorant because they're preferring their own opinion, and preaching as if it's an informed opinion, rather than seeking out the truth of the matter.

If you want to keep up this line of argument, please enlighten me how "the world at large" is going to data-mine my browser history, and take the time to cite some reputable sources when you state your case. I really am interested in learning something I don't yet know. If however you don't have anything to back up your claims then simply say so (and preferably apologise for your accusation).

 

[colonelciller]

Yes, I read it the first time you posted it, but you're not providing any substance to your argument.

So you read it the 1st time I posted it

... meaning that you understood that I was talking about you advising other people to keep their full internet history forever...

... meaning that you were intentionally pretending to think that i was not talking about you advising other people to keep their full internet history forever.

got it.

I'm tired of the unsubstantiated claims that people keep throwing around.

oh brother

You've also flat-out accused me of undermining peoples' privacy.

Yes, Absolutely... glad to see we agree on something. When you advise people en masse to save their entire internet history forever you are undermining peoples' privacy. Such behavior undermines privacy at home (when someone else uses the computer), undermines privacy when the computer is repaired at the local computer shop, and it undermines privacy when people idiotically sync their firefox desktop browser history, bookmarks, etc with their mobile device (link provided in previous post)... to name a few examples. I'm sure you can think of some additional examples of how saving the sum total of internet browsing history can undermine an individuals privacy.

When a person syncs their browser history to their mobile phone it is transferred onto a server belonging to a US Corporation... which is to say straight into the eager grasp of big brother. That's privacy fail 101.

... or are we burying our head in the sand and still pretending that data stored on servers run by a US corporation is secure?

 

[forever567]

OK got it guys

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, Absolutely... glad to see we agree on something. When you advise people en masse to save their entire internet history forever you are undermining peoples' privacy. Such behavior undermines privacy at home (when someone else uses the computer),

If you feel that someone else using your computer is undermining your privacy, there's your problem right there. If I don't want my wife to see what I've been browsing, then perhaps I should clear my browser history (or change the login password to my computer). In doing so I would have made a conscious decision based on logical principles. Presumably everyone reading this thread also has a brain that they are inclined to use from time to time and if they have similar concerns regarding the points I made on this thread, then they would also clear their browser history or take similar steps to protect/destroy that data. I think that's a reasonable assumption. If it isn't, then all advice on the Internet should be removed and stopped immediately, since people apparently don't have the mental capacity to determine how applicable said advice is for their situation.

undermines privacy when the computer is repaired at the local computer shop,

Ditto my previous comment. Are you advocating that people shouldn't store any data on their computer at all, or are you representing a minority that only/primarily cares about privacy of their browsing history?

and it undermines privacy when people idiotically sync their firefox desktop browser history, bookmarks, etc with their mobile device (link provided in previous post)... to name a few examples.

Yes, but the topic is BROWSER HISTORY, not UPLOADING FIREFOX DATA TO THE CLOUD. Two entirely different things, not related through default profile settings, nor is the latter a requirement for the former. The only tenuous link is that one's browser history is probably uploaded if one uses Firefox Sync.

When a person syncs their browser history to their mobile phone it is transferred onto a server belonging to a US Corporation... which is to say straight into the eager grasp of big brother. That's privacy fail 101.

Except I wasn't talking about browsing on a phone, and I think you know that perfectly well, but perhaps you feel that a straw man is your only hope of winning this argument. Talking about what other stupid things people might do is utterly absurd. For example, they might have downloaded Firefox from a malware site to begin with.

... or are we burying our head in the sand and still pretending that data stored on servers run by a US corporation is secure?

To the best of my knowledge, the only place my Firefox history is stored is on my computer. If you believe it is being stored elsewhere, then feel free to enlighten me (citing reputable sources while you're at it). If any government organisations are tracking my browsing habits, they're not looking in my browser history, they're looking at my DNS requests or a more aggressive tactic that involves inspecting my Internet traffic. If a government organisation has taken the trouble to hack into my machine, then my browsing history would be on a list with a multitude of other bits of data that I would be concerned about.

You know, if you had just said something like "Well, I wouldn't suggest keeping your browser history if you use something like Firefox Sync", you might have had a valid and instructive point for others on this thread, depending on their privacy priorities (though I would say it's a fair assumption that privacy is not someone's highest priority if they're using such a feature), but seemingly you're trying to make logical connections where there aren't any. A Firefox user does not necessarily use Firefox Sync, they don't necessarily distrust other people who have authorised access to their computer, and they're not necessarily distrusting their preferred computer repair person.

 

[colonelciller]

If you feel that someone else using your computer is undermining your privacy, there's your problem right there. If I don't want my wife to see what I've been browsing, then perhaps I should clear my browser history (or change the login password to my computer). In doing so I would have made a conscious decision based on logical principles. Presumably everyone reading this thread also has a brain that they are inclined to use from time to time and if they have similar concerns regarding the points I made on this thread, then they would also clear their browser history or take similar steps to protect/destroy that data. I think that's a reasonable assumption. If it isn't, then all advice on the Internet should be removed and stopped immediately, since people apparently don't have the mental capacity to determine how applicable said advice is for their situation.

Ditto my previous comment. Are you advocating that people shouldn't store any data on their computer at all, or are you representing a minority that only/primarily cares about privacy of their browsing history?

Yes, but the topic is BROWSER HISTORY, not UPLOADING FIREFOX DATA TO THE CLOUD. Two entirely different things, not related through default profile settings, nor is the latter a requirement for the former. The only tenuous link is that one's browser history is probably uploaded if one uses Firefox Sync.

Except I wasn't talking about browsing on a phone, and I think you know that perfectly well, but perhaps you feel that a straw man is your only hope of winning this argument. Talking about what other stupid things people might do is utterly absurd. For example, they might have downloaded Firefox from a malware site to begin with.

To the best of my knowledge, the only place my Firefox history is stored is on my computer. If you believe it is being stored elsewhere, then feel free to enlighten me (citing reputable sources while you're at it). If any government organisations are tracking my browsing habits, they're not looking in my browser history, they're looking at my DNS requests or a more aggressive tactic that involves inspecting my Internet traffic. If a government organisation has taken the trouble to hack into my machine, then my browsing history would be on a list with a multitude of other bits of data that I would be concerned about.

You know, if you had just said something like "Well, I wouldn't suggest keeping your browser history if you use something like Firefox Sync", you might have had a valid and instructive point for others on this thread, depending on their privacy priorities (though I would say it's a fair assumption that privacy is not someone's highest priority if they're using such a feature), but seemingly you're trying to make logical connections where there aren't any. A Firefox user does not necessarily use Firefox Sync, they don't necessarily distrust other people who have authorised access to their computer, and they're not necessarily distrusting their preferred computer repair person.

1) you advocating for people to store their entire internet browsing history indefinitely... which is encouraging people to compromise their privacy. I've given explicit examples as to how. that should be the end of the story.

2) my preferred example is the sync option in firefox that many people use. as you did not caveat your recommendation for everyone to save their history forever you have thus given bad avice to many many potential readers who do sync... as syncing is a common thing people do. thus, bad privacy compromising advice. Syncing internet history uploading that data onto a server belonging to a US Corporation. Big bro has full unfettered access to that data which you know (or are we burying our head in the sand and pretending that they don't).

you are giving terrible advice
get over it, stop doing it and move on with your life.

 

[mikeymikec]

1) you advocating for people to store their entire internet browsing history indefinitely... which is encouraging people to compromise their privacy. I've given explicit examples as to how. that should be the end of the story.

You still haven't pointed out a situation where the Firefox history is a direct threat to everyones' privacy on the default settings. Your argument boils down to one assumption that I believe you're making:

Everyone doesn't want their partner/kids/employer/repair person to see their (porn?) browsing habits and while they're aware of the existence of the browser history, they're too stupid to realise that if they don't clear it, it can be read by anyone with authorised physical access to the computer(s) they use.

---

If you want to argue about Firefox Sync specifically being a threat to peoples' privacy, then go ahead but on a thread where you're actually on topic, because to talk about Firefox Sync being the reason why the browser history is a threat to privacy is like saying that iPhone users are compromising their privacy because they might be using an optional feature that possibly is a threat to their privacy.

Furthermore, this is the post that you seemingly have a problem with:

Why have a browser history? Because it's handy to be able to look through it (or type search terms into the address bar which filters first by bookmarks then by history) sometimes to find something you read a few months before without having to search the Internet manually for it.

Note the following:

1 - I did not advise that "everyone should keep their browser history".
2 - My advice actually included the fact that the history can be looked through.
3 - My advice was factually accurate.
4 - My advice did not downplay the risks of keeping the browser history.
5 - To someone who wasn't aware of the existence of the browser history, that post and/or this thread educated them of its existence, and the rest of the thread before that educated them that it can be cleared (as well as my post implying it), and there's one method described for how to clear it.
6 - Other posts in the thread had already mentioned valid (but not universally applicable, perhaps not even applicable to the majority) reasons not to keep the browser history.

After all of that, I don't really see a valid place for your hyperbole and off-topic points about Firefox Sync, if the aim is to provide useful advice.

 

[colonelciller]

You still haven't pointed out a situation where the Firefox history is a direct threat to everyones' privacy on the default settings. Your argument boils down to one assumption that I believe you're making:

Everyone doesn't want their partner/kids/employer/repair person to see their (porn?) browsing habits and while they're aware of the existence of the browser history, they're too stupid to realise that if they don't clear it, it can be read by anyone with authorised physical access to the computer(s) they use.

---

If you want to argue about Firefox Sync specifically being a threat to peoples' privacy, then go ahead but on a thread where you're actually on topic, because to talk about Firefox Sync being the reason why the browser history is a threat to privacy is like saying that iPhone users are compromising their privacy because they might be using an optional feature that possibly is a threat to their privacy.

Furthermore, this is the post that you seemingly have a problem with:



Note the following:

1 - I did not advise that "everyone should keep their browser history".
2 - My advice actually included the fact that the history can be looked through.
3 - My advice was factually accurate.
4 - My advice did not downplay the risks of keeping the browser history.
5 - To someone who wasn't aware of the existence of the browser history, that post and/or this thread educated them of its existence, and the rest of the thread before that educated them that it can be cleared (as well as my post implying it), and there's one method described for how to clear it.
6 - Other posts in the thread had already mentioned valid (but not universally applicable, perhaps not even applicable to the majority) reasons not to keep the browser history.

After all of that, I don't really see a valid place for your hyperbole and off-topic points about Firefox Sync, if the aim is to provide useful advice.

1st, i don't know why you think this is about porn.

2nd...
i'll repeat AGAIN for you.

Advocating to people (that you don't know) in a public forum to save their browsing history FOREVER compromises the privacy of those people. I have already provided explicit concrete examples of how privacy is compromised.

Since you did not explicitely tell people who use sync to not save their history forever, you are inadvertently sweeping up a number of people who use sync which is a popular feature. For every single one of those people who use syncandread your post and follow your bad advice, you will have susccessfully been an agent of privacy compromise for those individuals.

For every person who reads your thread and thinks it sounds like a good idea, and then has their computer repaired, you have once again acted as an agent to compromise their privacy. Did they understand the potential privacy compromising implications of that bad decision to save browsing history forever??... probably not or they would have likely decided to NOT store their history forever. Not everyone out there is computer savvy...most are terribly unsavvy and downright ignorant about privacy compromises with regards to computers... even people who think themselves pretty computer literate.

And as to your attempts to brand this off-topic I call schenanigans. This is as on-topic as it gets in the post-snowden big brother datamining world that we live in today. ...and that "off-topic" retort really reads as a just last resort attempt to win a losing argument. Saving browsing history forever is bad advice for anyone who cares about privacy, period.

 

[taq8ojh]

Exaggerating much?

Who gives a damn about someone's browsing history? That's right, NOONE. Not even the people who repair someone elses PC. They have enough work to do to bother looking at the data they work on, or at the contents of a disk they are repairing. Just because you have access to something doesn't mean you give rat's ass.

 

[mikeymikec]

@ colonelciller

Firefox retaining its history indefinitely is the default setting. Those who have changed the default settings have done so presumably based on an informed choice, and whether they're opting in to use Firefox Sync is irrelevant because if someone has chosen to use Firefox Sync then presumably that was also based on a separate and informed choice. Those informed choices are their business. If they're not making informed choices, there's not much I can do about that. If they're not aware of the default setting regarding the history, thanks to this thread (if they're reading this thread), now they are.

If you think that the Mozilla Organisation is compromising peoples' privacy either with the default history settings or through Firefox Sync, then take that up with them.

I guess the reason why I assumed you were concerned about porny browser history is probably because I share the same opinion as Octopuss on the general topic of browser history, and the only reason I can think of for someone getting so worked up about their browser history is because they've been looking at porn and they feel guilty about it.

I am concerned about the idea of state intrusion too, however I simply don't believe that Firefox's history settings have any relevance on that topic. Since you haven't produced any evidence that it does either ("what if the user is doing xyz too through an opt-in choice?" is simply not relevant in this discussion), my opinion remains unchanged.

You are repeating yourself endlessly. If you don't have any useful and on-topic points to make (so far you haven't made any in my opinion), then I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[IGemini]

Only about a month...brand new computer and I don't sync my history.

 

[ringtail]

You silly.

Trial & error in W98 days taught me the things I said to try to help you.

Obviously now bigger RAM & faster cpus slightly mask the benefits, yet the benefits are still ther for any dumb donkey (like me) who'll simply click a button once in awhile that clears out cache, and occasionally will also clear history like I posted.

Again, I got to the advice given to you empirically, discovered from real world use.

But your headupassattitude makes it impossible to help you, so party on in your OLD ways.

itton (tht clraes cc

< cut for brevity > I think you ought to test your theory in a similar way before recommending it to others, because I'm pretty sure it will make zero difference to performance. What you're saying is like recommending that people clear out their temp folders daily: Really - no difference to performance.

Ditto for your cache suggestion. The only time I've seen performance degradation caused by cache is if the browser (I've seen it happen with FF and IE on different occasions) stops maintaining the cache properly for some reason and it grows to silly sizes like >1GB.< cut for brevity >.

 

[colonelciller]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57...-history-is-totally-unique-like-fingerprints/

above link: browsing history as a totally unique fingerprint that can be used to identify an individual. uploading it onto a server belonging to a US corporation (mozilla sync) is a mistake.

Lavabit founder who shut down his company rather than be complicit in crimes aganst Americans: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."

--

browsing history is also extremely different from data files word docs stored on a computer. The differences are obvious and the conflation between storing data files vs internet history is both ignorant and absurd. Browsing history contains your daily interests, dreams, love interests, ex-love interests, political leanings, interest or not in political activism, fears, phobias, medical conditions and symptoms, which banks you use, which credit cards you use, which phone provider(s) you use, which email providers you use, etc... etc.

 

[mikeymikec]

@ ringtail

If the benefit is only slightly masked on today's hardware, then the difference should be easy to measure. If you can show me the performance difference and provide the testing method you used so that if anyone else wants to try it out for themselves, I'm always interested in learning something new.

In the days of Win98, Internet connections were much slower, typically used operating systems for browsing were less mature and stable, browser software and compression used in Internet traffic was less mature, and computers were much slower. There was a much greater need for client-side caching. These days, not so much.

However, it is logical that if a client spends less time downloading from a site because it can use its local cache, then surely it is going to load the website quicker. Every modern web browser still has a local disk cache which isn't (by default) cleared at the end of the session. Something tells me that if say Google Chrome's developers found that they could make a faster-to-use web browser because it didn't include that sort of disk cache, wouldn't they have done it already? You know, as part of making "the fastest web browser out there"?

One might also also theorise that the usefulness of the cache varies with the speed and latency of the Internet connection. Perhaps it does, I don't know. However, I would have thought that if it made a noticeable difference between two >0 cache sizes, then, just like in the days of installing RealPlayer and it asked the user what the speed of their Internet connection was, something similar (an automated test or a question) would still be a common thing. As far as I'm aware it isn't.

The reason why I mentioned 1GB for local cache being silly was that on more than one occasion (on different machines) I've seen Firefox being very sluggish in responsiveness terms. I checked the cache - set to auto, and had grown beyond 1GB. I decided to clear it and set it to 250MB (an arbitrary value admittedly). Problem solved. One of those occasions was with my own computer. Performance has felt the same since loading a few of the sites I commonly access. It probably has nothing to do with the 1GB figure itself but is simply a case of a bug causing Firefox to improperly maintain the cache yet still reading from all of it, and the larger the cache, the more noticeable the problem is. It might also be the case that a user's disk cache that is 2GB in size doesn't have the problem I've noticed before, and not because their hardware is so beefy that it completely masks the problem.

@ colonelciller

Re: Your link - there are ways for site owners to see where site visitors have been apart from their own site, such as messing with cookies (which aren't in the browser history, but when misinterpreted and dumbed down by a journalist, classed as part of the browser history, which in a dumbed down and general way they are). If you read the linked-to-that-article regarding YouPorn, you'll notice that the Firefox devs identified a bug in their software and fixed it. Personally I don't see a great deal of point in talking about bugs that could be found in software as long as the function of the software is based upon a sound premise (from a security sense) to begin with, otherwise if you want to advise people to secure their browsers, two methods of doing so that are orders of magnitude more effective as methods of protection than clearing the browser history are a) disabling JavaScript and b) removing/disabling all plug-ins, or perhaps using NoScript. While I hear of vulnerabilities exploiting JS or plug-ins on a regular basis (probably representing 75% of the security bugs affecting browsers every year), the only bug I can remember regarding the browser history ever is the one mentioned in that article.

Re: Browsing history versus "other data" - most of the things that you mentioned "are in the browser history" are in my personal documents. I would say that if someone stole my home computer they could find out most of what there is to know about me by looking at my data without even bothering to look at my browser history. A really obvious and almost universal example is one's CV, another is the fact that an increasing number of people are opting for paperless billing, another is the family photos, the music collection, letters typed on the computer and printed, e-mail software storing the data locally... the list goes on. My wife keeps a christmas present list on her computer, I have a spreadsheet of things that I want or need. I've written short stories and kept a diary on the computer of certain portions of my life. I've scanned in documents to do with my medical condition because I prefer data to paper and I don't have much space to store the latter.

One key difference between the two is that the history mentions that you use a certain bank; it's more like someone going down your garbage and finding empty envelopes with a bank's name on it, whereas the paperless billing information (or any other type of information I've already described) stored in files on many peoples' computers provide a lot more information.

 

[colonelciller]

Firefox retaining its history indefinitely is the default setting. Those who have changed the default settings have done so presumably based on an informed choice, and whether they're opting in to use Firefox Sync is irrelevant because if someone has chosen to use Firefox Sync then presumably that was also based on a separate and informed choice. Those informed choices are their business. If they're not making informed choices, there's not much I can do about that.
.

most people who use computers are nor highly computer literate. most people do not understand thee issues enough to make informed decisions. arguing for personal responsibility here is absurd. it is irresponsible to throwing out privacy comprimising recommendations willy nilly while attempting to shield your position behind a retort of "users should make informed decisionsis"...all the while knowing good annd well that the VAST majority of internet surfers are wholly incapable of making an informed decisions here because they lack an understanding of the issues (although here i must say that you also seem to lack an understanding of the issues at hand). the 1st step towards understanding would to be to rremove your head fromthe sand.

 

[colonelciller]

the point to the link is that browsing history can and does act as a unique fingerprint identifier. if you know how to ue google i suggest you perform a search to understand the issue, i will not copy and paste the entireinternet here in order to educate you.

couple that with sync and millions of people's histories stored in a single location and you have a recipe for disaster and abuse. the difference between mine and your positions is that you argue for a pro spy-enabling pro privacy-compromising pro big brother's orgasm activity while i argue for not telling the average uninformed internet surfer to do things that will jeapordize their privacy.

 

[taq8ojh]

So what terrible thing will happen if you don't clear history? Someone will knock on your doors, because based on some stoned conspiration theories big brother watches even how many toilet paper scraps you use to wipe your butt with?

 

[mikeymikec]

@ colonelciller

most people who use computers are nor highly computer literate.

Assuming you meant "most people who use computers are not highly computer literate", I agree.

most people do not understand thee issues enough to make informed decisions. arguing for personal responsibility here is absurd.

I disagree. If the issues are explained well enough, in my experience, most people have as competent a grasp of the issues as is necessary to make (in my opinion) a logical choice (though perhaps not always the one I would make in their place, some people use Firefox Sync, I don't. Lots of people trust cloud services, I don't).

If you start from an assumption that people won't understand these things, then if you direct that at your own advice, they won't understand why you're advising them to do things your way either. Therefore, what's the point in either of our approaches.

Personally I don't think you've made your case very well for advising everyone to regularly clear their browser history. You've made assumptions that I don't think are generally applicable (e.g. Firefox Sync, but also regarding peoples' sense of privacy and how they prioritise those).

If most people shared my (less hard-line than yours) opinion regarding their privacy, the idea of cloud services would be almost dead in the water as a business model, except as a system for transferring files of minimal importance, or as the opposite, being a system for transferring files of utmost importance but stored using the best encryption available. Governments who dared to spy on people without judicial oversight would be out of their jobs within the time that a president can receive a blowjob to completion. Instead some people get uppity about the blowjob and/or that he lied about it.

To give a more relevant "if people generally felt the same way as you do" scenario, then the browser history would have been killed off years ago. Developers are people too, and generally people would be saying "hold on, how does Firefox know I've been to this site before?". You can't educate people to think and act the same way as you do; you can educate people to consider the facts and draw their own conclusions. To believe otherwise falls under the definition of "brain washing".

As things are, many people are quite happy with the idea of uploading all their phone contacts, phone history, etc to iCloud. I personally find it amazing that some people wouldn't trust say their next-door neighbour that they know a great deal better than a faceless corporation which obviously has an agenda when supplying such services for free, yet would give the latter free access to extremely personal stuff (try picking up a stranger's mobile phone and start browsing through their stuff and see how they react), and even if you put such an idea to them they just shrug and say it's convenient. They understand your concerns, they just don't share them.

If I found someone sitting at my computer and looking through my browser history, my two questions would be "WTF are you doing in my house?" and "WTF are you doing on my computer?", not "hey, that's my browser history". To make my point shorter, my concern is the unjustified intrusion of my privacy, not specifically that they were looking through my browser history. TBH, if someone I knew asked to look in my main browser history, I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. However, if the same person accessed my computer without my permission, regardless of what they looked at, I would have a problem with that.

the point to the link is that browsing history can and does act as a unique fingerprint identifier.

If you read the article while accepting the spoon-fed and 'dumbed down to the point of innaccuracy' view of the author, then yes you might have got that impression. I personally would be more interested in how it was done rather than the author's poetic analogies as to its implications. For example, it might have nothing to do with the actual browser history data but the Flash Player history data (which is stored completely separately). As far as I'm aware, a browser developer would look at the unauthorised reading of a client's browser history as a security breach, treat it as a bug and fix it. If you think I'm wrong, please show me some Firefox bug reports where browser-history-remote-reading bugs were treated as WONTFIX.

- edit - the linked PDF to that article, specifically the 'Background' section, makes much more interesting reading than the article itself. However, I've got to the end of the '2.2' section, and the browser history itself so far has been mentioned once (CSS: visited exploit, fixed in most modern browsers). Otherwise, timing attacks, plugins, the cache, DNS cache (I'm not too sure about this one, I'd like to know more about it - I know the OS has a DNS cache but I wasn't aware of a browser DNS cache), font usage (!?), etc. Unfortunately they don't go much into specifics in the PDF and TBH I'm not so enthusiastic that I'm going to track down all their sources and probably pay for access as well.