You can disable it for all windows in all applications using a terminal command:

    defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSAutomaticWindowAnimationsEnabled -bool NO

[0] http://cydia.saurik.com/package/com.marcosinghof.noslowanima...

This can be done with uBlock Origin and an "annoyances" filter list such as EasyList Cookie. It doesn't actually give websites consent to use of cookies, only hides the consent form.

DNT is pretty dead, and IMHO was never a good idea in the first place. Opt-outing of invasive and unethical tracking is just weird. What about people who don't know about it? Or don't fully understand what it means?

It's almost like the Hitchhiker's Guide: "Well, you should have visited the planning department in the disused lavatory with a sign 'beware of the leopard".

I wrote some more about it over here: https://www.arp242.net/dnt.html

Edit: Having read your blog post, I want to say that I'm not necessarily asking for the original definition of DNT to be reused. What I want is for the DNT header to have the same effect as if I had said no to all optional categories of cookies.

The status quo is that we are asked a "yes or manage" question where "manage" means something horribly complicated that no one does. If we redefine DNT to mean "no to everything optional" then it becomes a matter of local law to define what is and isn't optional. This allows for the sort of minimum level of consumer protection that you're asking for.

The law could also require that this DNT header is opt-out. A per-site overridable DT header if you will.

I'm not going to claim that I have thought this through properly. It's just something that I wish Mozilla did some work on.

Maybe there should be standardized interface for accepting privacy policy and cookies, all managed in browser UI so you could set default settings and give exceptions for specific sites without cluttering website with various popups... oh wait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

Passwords are always stored encrypted when you save them in Firefox. You can read more about it here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-securely-sa...

Firefox addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21980909

I use I on Firefox mobile and desktop - don't know if there's a chromium version.

Almost forgot I use it which is the most positive review an add-on like this could receive.

Looks available on a gamut of different browsers.

Most of those are implemented in JS, so NoScript goes a pretty long way to fixing this. It would be nice if Firefox somehow auto-detected them, and other useless pop-overs, and nuked them.

Given that I prefer brave or bromite custom tabs (via Lynket) for short sessions on mobile (and prefer not to have long sessions on mobile at all), I generally just deal with it.

Windows open more quickly now than before. A few versions ago, it had become unbearably slow (I'm an FF user since Camino died), and I stuck to using tabs only, but 72 seems to have caught up again. I estimate that it's around 0.3s slower than Chrome on my machine.

> Use the platform native key store.

Amen to that.

I assume you mean new tabs?

That's very quick on Windows using FF 72. Interestingly that's been a long-time annoyance of mine when using Chrome on Mac - when compared to Safari which shines here.

No, I mean windows. Opening tabs is very fast.

Many of my workflows begin by opening an new empty browser window. I also tend to open links in new windows instead of tabs. I'm not a huge fan of tabs generally.

Whilst there are the "every tab in o e window open forever" people, there are plenty of "window for task" people.

Personally, I have been a window for task person 'since forever' (tabs are context depth in said task, hence "close tabs to right" being one of the most useful features).

You could say once malware is executed with my credentials it's game over anyway. But I disagree with that. Having a file full of passwords stolen is far worse than than anything else, including key loggers, because it's maximum damage in a minimum amount of time.

I want to make that as difficult as possible for any attacker.

On Windows, the same is true of the encrypted data; any program that runs as you can decrypt it. Is it different on macOS? How does the system authenticate a specific program?

So it's not the program that is authenticated. The system simply makes sure that any program accessing that particularly sensitive data is really controlled by the logged in user.

This is entirely separate from protections for other files that may or may not be encrypted.

Really? I thought Chrome, same as Firefox, stored credentials in an SQL file, the reason behind it being profiles and its built-in sync service.

Autofill doesn't require password entry, but before revealing any stored passwords you have to re-authenticate using the regular system login method.

I wish Firefox did the same.

It seems that macOS authenticates each process, so that might provide some extra security.