"Passwords: No passwords will be automatically filled in during the your Private Browsing session, and no new passwords will be saved. "
1st part of sentence is wrong! using v3.6.11 with passwords saved on 3.6.10, firefox fills passwords normaly. it might have to do with versions, or not, no idea, just stating some facts.
please, someone who understand how to report bugs and / or fix private browsing page do so, i'm totaly new to this website!
thx
hiho all
i just made account to edit wrong info on private browsing page:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-us/kb/private+browsing
problem is with:
"Passwords: No passwords will be automatically filled in during the your Private Browsing session, and no new passwords will be saved. "
1st part of sentence is wrong! using v3.6.11 with passwords saved on 3.6.10, firefox fills passwords normaly. it might have to do with versions, or not, no idea, just stating some facts.
please, someone who understand how to report bugs and / or fix private browsing page do so, i'm totaly new to this website!
thx
The addition of more information about what Private Browsing does and doesn't do is being discussed in bug 587551. <snip>
---> Posted 08-26-2010 (Verdi)
(For the record)
''The addition of more information about what Private Browsing does and doesn't do is being discussed in [http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=587551 bug 587551]. <snip>''
---> [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/704621 Posted 08-26-2010 (Verdi)]
As suggested in bug 587551, this article probably also needs a new section with more information about they ways you can still be tracked online (3rd party cookies, your isp, keyloggers, etc) and links to what you can do about it (tor extension?). Does anyone have time to take that on?
As suggested in [http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=587551 bug 587551], this article probably also needs a new section with more information about they ways you can still be tracked online (3rd party cookies, your isp, keyloggers, etc) and links to what you can do about it (tor extension?). Does anyone have time to take that on?
I added "on your computer" about information not saved.
I divided the first section into two sub-sections: "does" and "does not do".
I added a new section: How can I improve my privacy and security?
Based on Michael's revision (not cww's one):
I added "on your computer" about information not saved.
I divided the first section into two sub-sections: "does" and "does not do".
I added a new section: How can I improve my privacy and security?
I divided the first section into two sub-sections: "does" and "does not do".
What does Private Browsing do? should have a first sentence explaining that it protects your privacy by limiting what information is stored on the computer, before going into what information isn't saved. Also, the Cookies paragraph has "?" every other word.
I added a new section: How can I improve my privacy and security?
I think that section goes too far into general web security. It should stick to ways to keep from being tracked online, as suggested in bug 587551 comment 11, and should link to other sources of information on Internet privacy and leaving no footprints :
If you want to leave no footprints at all, you'll need a more secure solution.
Click here to learn learn more about these types of tracking, and how you may be able to protect yourself.
I was thinking, instead of adding a new section on improving privacy and security, maybe it could be the basis of a new article and you could link to it? Only thing, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of SUMO. (By the way, the Be conscious of Web security sub-section has a couple of bad links.)
P.S. This is not related to the pending edit but I noticed that there are two "Private Browsing forum" topics started here ( thought that feature was supposed to be disabled?):
on the pending edits to [[Private Browsing]]
''I divided the first section into two sub-sections: "does" and "does not do".''
'''What does Private Browsing do?''' should have a first sentence explaining that it protects your privacy by limiting what information is stored on the computer, before going into what information isn't saved. Also, the '''Cookies''' paragraph has "?" every other word.
''I added a new section: How can I improve my privacy and security?''
I think that section goes too far into general web security. It should stick to ways to keep from being tracked online, as suggested in [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=587551#c11 bug 587551 comment 11], and should link to other sources of information on Internet privacy and leaving no footprints :
<blockquote>If you want to leave no footprints at all, you'll need a more secure solution.
Click here to learn learn more about these types of tracking, and how you may be able to protect yourself.</blockquote>
I was thinking, instead of adding a new section on improving privacy and security, maybe it could be the basis of a new article and you could link to it? Only thing, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of SUMO. (By the way, the '''Be conscious of Web security''' sub-section has a couple of bad links.)
P.S. This is not related to the pending edit but I noticed that there are two "Private Browsing forum" topics started here ( thought that feature was supposed to be disabled?):
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Private%20Browsing/discuss
I haven't gone through scoobidiver's edit yet, but I need some clarification. As I understand it, scoobidiver's edit is based on Micheal's edit. If I approve Cheng's edit and scoobidiver's edit, what happens to the changes Cheng made?
I haven't gone through scoobidiver's edit yet, but I need some clarification. As I understand it, scoobidiver's edit is based on Micheal's edit. If I approve Cheng's edit and scoobidiver's edit, what happens to the changes Cheng made?
If I approve Cheng's edit and scoobidiver's edit, what happens to the changes Cheng made?
If you have several revisions waiting for a review, the first revision you'll approve will be the current one and the other ones will become unapproved.
So if you agree with my revision and you want also Cheng's changes, you need to add them manually based on the differences between Michael and Cheng's revisions. Or you can do the contrary: approve Cheng's revision and make changes based on the differences between Michael's revision and mine. The second solution seems to be easier to do in order to be able to take into account Alice's remarks.
''If I approve Cheng's edit and scoobidiver's edit, what happens to the changes Cheng made?''
If you have several revisions waiting for a review, the first revision you'll approve will be the current one and the other ones will become unapproved.
So if you agree with my revision and you want also Cheng's changes, you need to add them manually based on the differences between Michael and Cheng's revisions. Or you can do the contrary: approve Cheng's revision and make changes based on the differences between Michael's revision and mine. The second solution seems to be easier to do in order to be able to take into account Alice's remarks.
I'm going to approve Cheng's edit and I think we should continue to work on the information that scoobidiver added.
I was thinking, instead of adding a new section on improving privacy and security, maybe it could be the basis of a new article and you could link to it? Only thing, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of SUMO.
I agree that this section should be the basis of a new article and I do think it's in the scope of SUMO. I've talked about adding such articles in SUMO meetings and and linking to them where appropriate. The engagement team came up with a nice article about Create secure passwords to keep your identity safe that I think along with this possible new article could be great bits extra info linked from things like Private Browsing.
I'm going to approve Cheng's edit and I think we should continue to work on the information that scoobidiver added.
<blockquote>I was thinking, instead of adding a new section on improving privacy and security, maybe it could be the basis of a new article and you could link to it? Only thing, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of SUMO. </blockquote>
I agree that this section should be the basis of a new article and I do think it's in the scope of SUMO. I've talked about adding such articles in SUMO meetings and and linking to them where appropriate. The engagement team came up with a nice article about [[Choosing More Secure Passwords]] that I think along with this possible new article could be great bits extra info linked from things like Private Browsing.
So if you agree with my revision and you want also Cheng's changes, you need to add them manually based on the differences between Michael and Cheng's revisions. Or you can do the contrary: approve Cheng's revision and make changes based on the differences between Michael's revision and mine.
That is bad and shouldn't have to be dealt with. We should make a habit of the following:
If you want to edit an article and that article already has an edit waiting for review, do the review before editing the article.
If I look at the people who edited the article after Michael, every one has reviewer permissions, yet no one reviewed his edit.
Just a note that numbered lists are broken.
<blockquote>So if you agree with my revision and you want also Cheng's changes, you need to add them manually based on the differences between Michael and Cheng's revisions. Or you can do the contrary: approve Cheng's revision and make changes based on the differences between Michael's revision and mine.</blockquote>
That is bad and shouldn't have to be dealt with. We should make a habit of the following:<br>
If you want to edit an article and that article already has an edit waiting for review, do the review before editing the article.
If I look at the people who edited the article after Michael, every one has reviewer permissions, yet no one reviewed his edit.
If you have several revisions waiting for a review, the first revision you'll approve will be the current one and the other ones will become unapproved.
I want to correct something: only the previous ones become unapproved, those that have been edited after are still waiting for a review.
If I look at the people who edited the article after Michael, every one has reviewer permissions, yet no one reviewed his edit.
It wouldn't have changed anything to the actual situation, i.e. there have been 2 branches from the same revision.
''If you have several revisions waiting for a review, the first revision you'll approve will be the current one and the other ones will become unapproved.''
I want to correct something: only the previous ones become unapproved, those that have been edited after are still waiting for a review.
''If I look at the people who edited the article after Michael, every one has reviewer permissions, yet no one reviewed his edit.''
It wouldn't have changed anything to the actual situation, i.e. there have been 2 branches from the same revision.
(security and privacy extensions, not particularly Tor as it is against the SUMO policy to talk about one specific extension.)?
For the future revision (when?), we need to talk about:
* active login and site preferences not saved. See [[Clear Recent History]].
* what does Private Browsing not do? See my edit.
* (security and privacy extensions, not particularly Tor as it is against the SUMO policy to talk about one specific extension.)?
I rejected the Jan 26 2011 revision by scoobidiver based on Michael Verdi's Feb 1 2011 post that we should continue to work on this article and that the proposed section on improving privacy and security should be the basis of a new article. The new article should be discussed here:
I rejected the Jan 26 2011 revision by scoobidiver based on Michael Verdi's Feb 1 2011 post that we should continue to work on this article and that the proposed section on improving privacy and security should be the basis of a new article. The new article should be discussed here:
[/forums/knowledge-base-articles/704973] <br>
[Needs draft] How can I improve my privacy and security?
The Mar 16, 2011 revision by scoobidiver (removed fx3 content, fx4 replaced by not fx35) is still pending and this is one of the most visited articles.
Could someone check the note for Firefox 3.5/3.6 under the How do I always start Firefox in Private Browsing? section? I see:
"If you enter Private Browsing this way but Firefox will still not retain history as described above."
The Mar 16, 2011 revision by scoobidiver (removed fx3 content, fx4 replaced by not fx35) is still pending and this is one of the most visited articles.
Could someone check the note for Firefox 3.5/3.6 under the How do I always start Firefox in Private Browsing? section? I see:
"If you enter Private Browsing this way but Firefox will still not retain history as described above."
