Are the privacy features of Firefox 69.0 complementary to PrivacyBadger 2019.7.1.1?

Summary

– The privacy features of Firefox 69.0 are complementary to Privacy Badger 2019.7.1.1 in some ways, but not all.
– Both Firefox and Privacy Badger have similar privacy features, such as blocking third-party cookies and tracking scripts.
– However, Privacy Badger goes beyond Firefox by blocking third-party trackers and fingerprinting techniques.
– Ultimately, using both Firefox and Privacy Badger together provides the most comprehensive protection against online tracking.

– Main body
1. Introduction
– Both Firefox 69.0 and Privacy Badger 2019.7.1.1 are known for their strong privacy features.
– This article will compare the privacy features of both applications to determine if they are complementary.
2. Similarities between Firefox and Privacy Badger
– Both Firefox and Privacy Badger block third-party cookies and tracking scripts by default, which helps prevent online tracking.
– Both applications allow users to delete their browsing history and cookies easily.
– Both applications have built-in HTTPS encryption, which ensures that data transmitted over the internet is secure.
3. Differences between Firefox and Privacy Badger
– Privacy Badger goes beyond Firefox by blocking third-party trackers that are not necessarily involved in advertising or tracking.
– Privacy Badger also blocks fingerprinting techniques, which are used to identify individual users based on unique characteristics of their devices.
– On the other hand, Firefox has a feature called “Enhanced Tracking Protection” that can block third-party cookies and cross-site tracking. However, this feature is not enabled by default in Firefox 69.0.
4.

Conclusion

– While both Firefox and Privacy Badger have strong privacy features, they are not exactly the same.
– Using both applications together can provide a more comprehensive protection against online tracking, as each application has its own unique strengths.

Previous Post

Does the entire AES encrypted dataset have to be present to be ‘cracked’?

Next Post

C++ : memset on a struct containing std::wstring – Is it a risk?

Related Posts