One of the more interesting things about Amazon’s new Fire tablet is their own browser called Silk. What makes the browser interesting is that it uses a “split” design that has any browser traffic using Silk going through the Amazon servers.

This apparently has gotten a few folks in Congress concerned because of possible privacy issues. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has come out saying that the idea of Amazon funneling all the traffic through its servers is bothersome to say the least.

Not to be left out Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has sent a letter to Amazon seeking some clarification on the possible privacy issues. In his letter MArkey is asking:

• What information does Amazon plan to collect about users of the Kindle Fire?
• How does Amazon intend to use this information?
• How will Amazon convey its privacy policy to Fire and Silk users?
• If Amazon plans to collect information about its users’ Internet browsing habits, will customers be able to affirmatively opt in to participate in the data sharing program?

Congress is concerned over privacy issues with Amazon’s new Silk browser is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to a post by Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced today the formation of a new Web Real-Time Communications Working Group. This group is looking to lay the groundwork, through client-side APIs, for real-time communications in the browser that won’t require any server-side implementation.

Not sure what all that means?

Well, just imagine that our browsers are connected directly to each other and using real-time APIs and P2P share everything from video, voice, or run applications – all without the need of a server.

As Marshall points out – this could have a huge impact on the web and how we use it.

“These APIs should enable building applications that can be run inside a browser,” the new Working Group’s charter says, “requiring no extra downloads or plugins, that allow communication between parties using audio, video and supplementary real-time communication, without having to use intervening servers (unless needed for firewall traversal, or for providing intermediary services).”

The working group is being lead by two engineers: Harald Alvestrand from Google and Stefan Håkansson from Ericsson.

This could really change the Web and piss off groups like RIAA is a post from: The Inquisitr

It seems that one of the autofill features allows you to have web forms automatically filled, even if you have never been to the site before, by pulling in your information from your Address Book card. The danger, as outlined by Jeremiah Grossman using a very simple exploit, is that malicious sites could create hidden dynamic form text fields which would then be populated with your information using Javascript A-Z keystrokes.

As shown in the proof-of-concept code (graciously hosted by Robert “RSnake” Hansen), the entire process takes mere seconds and represents a major breach in online privacy. This attack could be further leveraged in multistage attacks including email spam, (spear) phishing, stalking, and even blackmail if a user is de-anonymized while visiting objectionable online material.

Sometimes the best hacks are the simplest ones but it also goes to show that security problems are just the providence of any one tech company.

image courtesy of 9 to 5 Mac

Apple Safari is a hacker’s info harvesting dream is a post from: The Inquisitr

There’s been some interesting news coming out of Google and Adobe regarding the idea of Chrome having built-in Flash support. As some have pointed out this is rather curious given Google’s apparent support for HTML5 but hey who are we to second guess the great Google eh.

What is more interesting to me was some additional news that came along with the Chrome and Flash info. It appears that Google is also working with Mozilla to develop a browser agnostic plugin API.

In addition, Adobe says it is working with Mozilla and Google and the “broader community” to create a new API for browser plugins. This new API, which will build off Mozilla’s NPAPI, which has been designed from the start to be both operating system and browser neutral. In essence, the goal of the new API is to allow plugins to more tightly integrate with host browsers, which in turn should benefit users in terms of performance and security.

The new browser plugin API will allow add-ons to directly share more information about its current state to its developers and the makers of the host browser it was made for, and it could also allow for a more secure browsing experience as the process of unifying security models and collaboration on techniques to defend against hackers (e.g. sandboxing) will be made easier.

Source: Robin Wauters

I say interesting because aside from the great benefit that it would bring to both users and developers it is a subject that I wrote about last week.

Even though the post was more in reference to Twitter clients and the use of plugins I did also raise the subject of browser plugins

In the case of our browsers plugins are clearly delineated by the browser they are coded to work with. Instead of having a plugin that can work regardless of which browser you may be using at the moment we have to hunt up; if even available, our favorite plugin for each of the browsers we use and install each separately. The newly announced initiative from Mozilla Labs called Contacts which is suppose to let us consolidate all our contacts in one area using the Portable Contacts format is a good example of a great idea being limited.

It is understandable that Mozilla is tying the idea in with their Firefox browser but what about the rest of us that don’t want to use Firefox. It is ideas like this that should be universally available regardless of browser or platform with a single install, which of course would take the operating system into account.

Little did I know when I wrote the above that this was an area where some real effort was being done. It is an effort that I totally applaud and I really hope that if this actually gets off the ground that Microsoft would be willing to hop on board.

Plugins to be browser agnostic – gee where did I hear that before? is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the most waited features for Google’s Chrome browser, other than a working version for Mac fans, has to be the extensions that let you add new features and options via plugins. This is the same thing that has made Firefox one of the most popular browsers and has also held back a wider adoption of Google’s browser.

Well as of today that has all changed as Google has opened up the Extensions pages for Chrome fans. Currently there are about 300 plus extensions for you to choose from and I would imagine now that it has gone live that number will increase.

First you will need to make sure you have the most current version of Chrome installed

Once you have taken care of the bit of browser housekeeping you can get to the good stuff of checking out the new extensions you want to install. To do this simply open a new tab in Chrome and you will see the Extensions link at the bottom along with a jigsaw type icon in the lower right.

As you install your pick of extension goodness you will see the icons/buttons associated with the extension (if required by the extension) appear in the addressbar area.

Now I’m not a big user of extensions but I know people who are and held off on switching to Chrome because of this – well they have no reason now.

Yes folks Google Chrome now has extensions is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’ll be honest: I wasn’t expecting to fall in love with this thing. I’m quite pleased with my Firefox setup and have no burning desire to leave it behind. After two years of development, though, Google’s built a surprisingly strong overall offering. The first beta, officially released Tuesday afternoon, incorporates some interesting and appealing features — but it’s also lacking in some areas that are hard to let go.

The Good

The positives of Chrome are a’plenty. The program’s multiprocess design is probably its biggest selling point. While Firefox 3 improved performance, anyone who has numerous tabs/windows open at once knows how easily one crappy site can still take it down. Chrome, on the other hand, operates every tab and window in its own unique environment, taking much of the risk away. Navigated to a slow-running site? No problem. Just close that tab and the rest of your browsing isn’t bothered. It even runs Java, Flash, and other add-ons in their own environments as well, so some sloppy code won’t slow down even the rest of that one page.

The bare-bones design, fitting with Google’s typical clean interface approach, is rather refreshing. There’s really no wasted screen real estate in this thing. Its file-style tabs are far more intuitive than the standard in-window look, and they’re way more useful, too. One of my favorite features is being able to drag tabs in and out of windows at any whim. I constantly have to cut-and-paste URLs into different windows to accomplish this currently.

Other noteworthy options: The “Omnibox” search/navigation bar, which lets you type in either a URL or a search term without thinking twice (and even lets you customize your default search choice — it’s not a Google-only tool); the dynamic home page that shows your most visited sites, search engines, and bookmarks; and the IE-esque “Incognito” feature that lets you activate no-history-browsing. There’s also an interesting “application mode,” in which you can set a direct desktop shortcut for a Web-based application and have it open as an application rather than as a browser window. This could come in handy for things like a WordPress log-in or webmail log-in, where you don’t want to accidentally navigate away from it during the day.

The Bad

The strongest con for me right now is the lack of add-ons. I rely on several Firefox extensions, and Chrome just doesn’t support them yet. It will eventually, at least in theory — but that doesn’t do me any good right now.

The beta nature of the browser is also a serious concern. Spend some time surfing around and you’ll see some shifty stuff as far as errors and funky formatting. Some of this may also be a result of the differing standards. Google’s engineers made a point to talk about the compatibility of Chrome’s WebKit foundation — basically, they say, if a site works with Safari (which also uses WebKit), it’ll work with Chrome. That may be, but Safari only accounts for about 6 percent of the browser market. Most sites aren’t designed with it in mind…so that doesn’t do me much good either.

There’s also the notion of privacy. One wonders how much sharing Google plans on doing with its various advertising interests. Do I want them knowing every move I make during the day?

The Verdict

The speed and performance of Chrome are powerful draws and make me want to move in right now. Firefox, even in its third release, doesn’t often perform to my expectations, and it drives me crazy while I’m trying to work. At the same time, though, I’m not ready to give up my add-on power. I’ll keep Chrome on my system and will experiment with it over time, but for now, I’m holding out on a full switch until a more complete release — complete with the add-ons I need, too — is ready.

As for overall success, it’s hard to imagine Chrome being able to dethrone IE. For better or for worse, Microsoft’s browser accounts for the overwhelming majority of the market — around 70 to 75 percent, depending on whom you ask. Being that many of those users are on it simply because it’s the Windows default and they don’t know or care to change it explains a lot. Logic would tell you that most people who might try Chrome are more likely to be Firefox users — people who also tend to be the more technologically inclined and curious sort. So if anything, Chrome may steal some of Mozilla’s fire — but it seems unlikely it’ll have a significant impact on IE’s dominance, unless Google’s able to eventually secure some type of Windows distribution deal.

Oh, and Mac and Linux users: Google’s guys insisted your versions are on the way soon. At today’s media event, they said they’ve been working on all three platforms concurrently. With Windows finished first, they said they wanted to get it out to the public as soon as possible to start getting feedback. So stay tuned for your turn.

Google Chrome: Should You Convert? is a post from: The Inquisitr

His grandfather, John LeSieur, was so annoyed with the situation that he decided to build his grandson his own browser– the Zac Browser for Autistic Children.

With the Zac Browser, there are no confusing choices for autistic kids to make. Kids are presented with hand-picked choices from free websites. There are no keyboard controls. Other distractions like advertisements are blocked.

The Zac Browser is now being distributed for free.

Browser for Autistic Kids Released is a post from: The Inquisitr