Yes avoid linking your Google account with those sites asking for you to use your Google login it just gives them more data on you, if you have done it in the past you can go into Google Account manager and revoke the access.
If you need a login to use them, then use a standard email/password combination, it's handy to have a separate email address for this type of site, and of course do not re-use passwords.
A lot of this is above my head but I always use Firefox in private browsing mode with U Block Origin (ad blocker) and I have not been able to see https://www.classicrockmagazine.com/ or https://www.progrockmag.com/ for many months without getting a warning that there is "A Potnential Security Risk Ahead" I usually go to "advanced" and accept the risk. I see that the error code is -
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN" Another thing that has appeared for some time on some newspaper sites and other sites is a pop up saying - "Use Your Google Account To Sign In To........." There are very few sites (not this one!) that I sign into, certaily not newspaper sites.
Yes very true, after all it would affect all local addresses on internal networks, and router interfaces for example. I suppose they could differentiate between private and public IP's but yes they have to still support basic http everything else is built on top of that.
The only problem I see is that Google is heading for a virtual monopoly, even Microsoft uses the Chromium code now. Google have previous when it comes to introducing non-standard protocols like QUIC and that other protocol I've seen in URL's that optimises for mobiles, the acronym escapes me now but basically they pass the data through their servers. It is is pity the only other viable browser engine is Firefox, we are getting back to the bad old days of Internet Explorer only, before Netscape arrived.
It's the same with the issue of the introduction of MV3 which is making life difficult for ad-blockers. I try to like Firefox, but there's no doubt some sites are beginning to break on non-chromium browsers.
There has to be a easy way around it. If not web site developers will stop using the browser, because unless you can open a local non HTTPS IP address you won't be able to test your site prior to publishing. I have servers running locally at addresses such as http://192.168.1.10:8080 If I can't open that then I'll use something else.
Well exactly, I have put the question to the developers so we'll see the outcome, as I say it's probably easy for us to circumvent it, but it's the default setting that counts for the average listener
Interesting as I use the nightly Canary builds and hadn't seen that. But then I tend to look at these issues as how I can circumnavigate them.
I've read it on a few different sites, I will endeavour to find some links. If you use Google Chrome go to chrome://settings/security you will see an optional use HTTPS or put up warning. The word from Canary testers is that the current option will be mandatory, and no way to proceed from the warning page. No doubt there will be a flag setting, but that's beyond the capability of the average user, and looking at Google's previous flag options they are soon removed. I don't know the situation with Firefox, but Chrome currently has around 65% market share.
Mark, do you have a source for this information? I can't find any recent announcement from any browser company on this topic.
Be interested to know where it has come from.
As well as geo-blocking stations outside the UK on the excellent site Radio Garden https://radio.garden/ another barrier to running your own streaming station is about to be implemented, this time by the browser companies.
Shortly they will not allow addresses of the form e.g. http://123.45.67.89/stream.mp3 all sites will require a security certificate and have the prefix https:// note the "s".
In order to get a certificate (which can be obtained free) you will need a domain on the DNS register so your stream will have to be, for example, https://example.com/stream.mp3 in other words, paid hosting for a hosting company that supports Icecast or Shoutcast server software. This raises the cost and will be out of reach or not worth the bother for many small stations.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index