A rare bid to break up Alphabet's Google is one of the options being considered by the Justice Department after a landmark court ruling found that the company monopolized the online search market, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the matter. From the report: The move would be Washington's first push to dismantle a company for illegal monopolization since unsuccessful efforts to break up Microsoft two decades ago.

Less severe options include forcing Google to share more data with competitors and measures to prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in AI products, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations. Regardless, the government will likely seek a ban on the type of exclusive contracts that were at the center of its case against Google. If the Justice Department pushes ahead with a breakup plan, the most likely units for divestment are the Android operating system and Google's web browser Chrome, said the people. Officials are also looking at trying to force a possible sale of AdWords, the platform the company uses to sell text advertising, one of the people said.

Mozilla's interim CEO Laura Chambers "says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years," reports Fast Company, "hoping to reestablish the browser as independent alternative to the likes of Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari.

"But some of those investments, which also include forays into generative AI, may further upset the community that's been sticking with Firefox all these years..." Chambers acknowledges that Mozilla lost sight of Firefox in recent years as it chased opportunities outside the browser, such as VPN service and email masking. When she replaced Mitchell Baker as CEO in February, the company scaled back those other efforts and made Firefox a priority again. "Yes, Mozilla is refocusing on Firefox," she says. "Obviously, it's our core product, so it's an important piece of the business for us, but we think it's also really an important part of the internet."

Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers. In June, Mozilla added vertical tab support in Firefox's experimental branch, echoing a feature that Microsoft's Edge browser helped popularize three years ago. It's also working on tab grouping features and an easier way to switch between user profiles. Mozilla is even revisiting the concept of web apps, in which users can install websites as freestanding desktop applications. Mozilla abandoned work on Progressive Web Apps in Firefox a few years ago to the dismay of many power users, but now it's talking with community members about a potential path forward.

"We haven't always prioritized those features as highly as we should have," Chambers says. "That's been a real shift that's been very felt in the community, that the things they're asking for . . . are really being prioritized and brought to life."
Firefox was criticized for testing a more private alternative to tracking cookies which could make summaries of aggregated data available to advertisers. (Though it was only tested on a few sites, "Privacy-Preserving Attribution" was enabled by default.) But EFF staff technologist Lena Cohen tells Fast Company that approach was "much more privacy-preserving" than Google's proposal for a "Privacy Sandbox." And according to the article, "Mozilla's system only measures the success rate of ads — it doesn't help companies target those ads in the first place — and it's less susceptible to abuse due to limits on how much data is stored and which parties are allowed to access it." In June, Mozilla also announced its acquisition of Anonym, a startup led by former Meta executives that has its own privacy-focused ad measurement system. While Mozilla has no plans to integrate Anonym's tech in Firefox, the move led to even more anxiety about the kind of company Mozilla was becoming. The tension around Firefox stems in part from Mozilla's precarious financial position, which is heavily dependent on royalty payments from Google. In 2022, nearly 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from Google, which paid $510 million to be Firefox's default search engine. Its attempts to diversify, through VPN service and other subscriptions, haven't gained much traction.

Chambers says that becoming less dependent on Google is "absolutely a priority," and acknowledges that building an ad-tech business is one way of doing that. Mozilla is hoping that emerging privacy regulations and wider adoption of anti-tracking tools in web browsers will increase demand for services like Anonym and for systems like Firefox's privacy-preserving ad measurements. Other revenue-generating ideas are forthcoming. Chambers says Mozilla plans to launch new products outside of Firefox under a "design sprint" model, aimed at quickly figuring out what works and what doesn't. It's also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar in the browser's experimental branch.
Chambers "says to expect a bigger marketing push for Firefox in the United States soon, echoing a 'Challenge the default' ad campaign that was successful in Germany last summer. Mozilla's nonprofit ownership structure, and the idea that it's not beholden to corporate interests, figures heavily into those plans."

Though "It could take years to resolve," the Washington Post imagines six changes that could ultimately result from the two monopoly rulings on Google: Imagine a Google-quality search engine but without ads — or one tailored to children, news junkies or Lego fans. It's possible that Google could be forced to let other companies access its search technology or its essential data to create search engines with the technical chops of Google — but without Google...

Would Apple create a search engine...? The likeliest scenario is you'd need to pick whether to use Google on your iPhone or something else. But technologists and stock analysts have also speculated for years that Apple could make its own search engine. It would be like when Apple started Apple Maps as an alternative to Google Maps.

What if Google weren't allowed to know so much about you? Jason Kint of Digital Content Next, an industry group that includes online news organizations, said one idea is Google's multiple products would no longer be allowed to commingle information about what you do. It would essentially be a divorce of Google's products without breaking the company up. That could mean, for example, that whatever you did on your Android phone or the websites you visit using Chrome would not feed into one giant Google repository about your activities and interests.
The article also wonders if the judge could order Google to be broken up, with separate companies formed out of Android, Google search, and Chrome. (Or if more search competition might make prices drop for the products advertised in search results — or lower the fees charged in Android's app store.) Android's app store might also lose its power to veto apps that compete with Google.

"This is educated speculation," the article acknowledges. "It's also possible that not much will really change. That's what happened after Google was found to have broken the European Union's anti-monopoly laws."

Google has also said it plans to appeal Monday's ruling.

"CrowdStrike has continued doing what gave it such an expansive footprint in the first place," writes CSO Online — "detecting cyber threats and protecting its clients from them."

They interviewed Adam Meyers, CrowdStrike's SVP of counter adversary operations, whose team produced their 2024 Threat Hunting Report (released this week at the Black Hat conference). Of seven case studies presented in the report, the most daring is that of a group CrowdStrike calls Famous Chollima, an alleged DPRK-nexus group. Starting with a single incident in April 2024, CrowdStrike discovered that a group of North Koreans, posing as American workers, had been hired for multiple remote IT worker jobs in early 2023 at more than thirty US-based companies, including aerospace, defense, retail, and technology organizations.

CrowdStrike's threat hunters discovered that after obtaining employee-level access to victim networks, the phony workers performed at minimal enough levels to keep their jobs while attempting to exfiltrate data using Git, SharePoint, and OneDrive and installing remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools RustDesk, AnyDesk, TinyPilot, VS Code Dev Tunnels, and Google Chrome Remote Desktop. The workers leveraged these RMM tools with company network credentials, enabling numerous IP addresses to connect to victims' systems.

CrowdStrike's OverWatch hunters, a team of experts conducting analysis, hunted for RMM tooling combined with suspicious connections surfaced by the company's Falcon Identity Protection module to find more personas and additional indicators of compromise. CrowdStrike ultimately found that over 100 companies, most US-based technology entities, had hired Famous Chollima workers. The OverWatch team contacted victimized companies to inform them about potential insider threats and quickly corroborated its findings.
Thanks to Slashdot reader snydeq for sharing the news.

An anonymous reader shared this report from BleepingComputer: A Chinese hacking group tracked as StormBamboo has compromised an undisclosed internet service provider (ISP) to poison automatic software updates with malware. Also tracked as Evasive Panda, Daggerfly, and StormCloud, this cyber-espionage group has been active since at least 2012, targeting organizations across mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, Nigeria, and various Southeast and East Asian countries.

On Friday, Volexity threat researchers revealed that the Chinese cyber-espionage gang had exploited insecure HTTP software update mechanisms that didn't validate digital signatures to deploy malware payloads on victims' Windows and macOS devices... To do that, the attackers intercepted and modified victims' DNS requests and poisoned them with malicious IP addresses. This delivered the malware to the targets' systems from StormBamboo's command-and-control servers without requiring user interaction.
Volexity's blog post says they observed StormBamboo "targeting multiple software vendors, who use insecure update workflows..." and then "notified and worked with the ISP, who investigated various key devices providing traffic-routing services on their network. As the ISP rebooted and took various components of the network offline, the DNS poisoning immediately stopped."

BleepingComputer notes that "âAfter compromising the target's systems, the threat actors installed a malicious Google Chrome extension (ReloadText), which allowed them to harvest and steal browser cookies and mail data."

Apple's elaborate new ad campaign promises that Safari is "a browser that protects your privacy." And the Washington Post says Apple "deserves credit for making many privacy protections automatic with Safari..."

"But Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said Safari is no better than the fourth-best web browser for your privacy." "If browser privacy were a sport at the Olympics, Apple isn't getting on the medal stand," Cahn said. (Apple did not comment about this.)

Safari stops third-party cookies anywhere you go on the web. So do Mozilla's Firefox and the Brave browser... Chrome allows third-party cookies in most cases unless you turn them off... Even without cookies, a website can pull information like the resolution of your computer screen, the fonts you have installed, add-on software you use and other technical details that in aggregate can help identify your device and what you're doing on it. The measures, typically called "fingerprinting," are privacy-eroding tracking by another name. Nick Doty with the Center for Democracy & Technology said there's generally not much you can do about fingerprinting. Usually you don't know you're being tracked that way. Apple says it defends against common fingerprinting techniques but Cahn said Firefox, Brave and the Tor Browser all are better at protecting you from digital surveillance. That's why he said Safari is no better than the fourth-best browser for privacy.
Safari's does offer extra privacy protections in its "private" mode, the article points out. "When you use this option, Apple says it does more to block use of 'advanced' fingerprinting techniques. It also steps up defenses against tracking that adds bits of identifying information to the web links you click."

The article concludes that Safari users can "feel reasonably good about the privacy (and security) protections, but you can probably do better — either by tweaking your Apple settings or using a web browser that's even more private than Safari."

Google wants to help ease the pain of comparison shopping across multiple tabs in Chrome with a new AI-powered tool that can summarize your tabs into one page. From a report: The tool, which Google is calling "tab compare," will use generative AI to pull product data from tabs you have open and collect it all into one table. Assuming it works and pulls accurate information, the tool seems like it could be a handy way to look at a number of different products in one unified view.

But while it's potentially useful, the tool could also take away traffic from sites that collect and compare product information -- which might be especially worrying for independent publishers that are already struggling to be seen on Google. I'm also skeptical that Google will correctly pull all of the finer details about various products into the tables it creates with tab compare. I don't always trust Google's accuracy right now! There are some limits on what tab compare can do. The tables it creates are limited to 10 items because "we've just found the column layout doesn't scale very well beyond that," Google spokesperson Joshua Cruz tells The Verge.

Mozilla is following in Google Chrome's footsteps in officially distrusting Entrust as a root certificate authority (CA) following what it says was a protracted period of compliance failures. From a report: A little over a month ago, Google was the first to make the bold step of dropping Entrust as a CA, saying it noted a "pattern of concerning behaviors" from the company. Entrust has apologized to Google, Mozilla, and the wider web community, outlining its plans to regain the trust of browsers, but these appear to be unsatisfactory to both Google and Mozilla.

In an email shared by Mozilla's Ben Wilson on Wednesday, the root store manager said the decision wasn't taken lightly, but equally Entrust's response to Mozilla's concerns didn't inspire confidence that the situation would materially change for the better. "Mozilla previously requested that Entrust provide a detailed report on these recent incidents and their root causes, an evaluation of Entrust's recent actions in light of their previous commitments given in the aftermath of similarly serious incidents in 2020, and a proposal for how Entrust will re-establish Mozilla's and the community's trust," said Wilson.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has expressed disappointment with Google's decision to retain third-party cookies, stating it undermines collaborative efforts. Google's reversal follows a five-year initiative to develop privacy-focused ad technology. While some advertising industry representatives welcomed the move, the W3C's criticism highlights the ongoing debate over online privacy and advertising practices. W3C writes: Third-party cookies are not good for the web. They enable tracking, which involves following your activity across multiple websites. They can be helpful for use cases like login and single sign-on, or putting shopping choices into a cart -- but they can also be used to invisibly track your browsing activity across sites for surveillance or ad-targeting purposes. This hidden personal data collection hurts everyone's privacy.

We aren't the only ones who are worried. The updated RFC that defines cookies says that third-party cookies have "inherent privacy issues" and that therefore web "resources cannot rely upon third-party cookies being treated consistently by user agents for the foreseeable future." We agree. Furthermore, tracking and subsequent data collection and brokerage can support micro-targeting of political messages, which can have a detrimental impact on society, as identified by Privacy International and other organizations. Regulatory authorities, such as the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have also called for the blocking of third-party cookies.

The job of the TAG as stewards of the architecture of the web has us looking at the big picture (the whole web platform) and the details (proposed features and specs). We try to provide guidance to spec authors so that their new technologies fill holes that need to be filled, don't conflict with other parts of the web, and don't set us up for avoidable trouble in the future. We've been working with Chrome's Privacy Sandbox team (as well as others in the W3C community) for several years, trying to help them create better approaches for the things that third-party cookies do. While we haven't always agreed with the Privacy Sandbox team, we have made substantial progress together. This announcement came out of the blue, and undermines a lot of the work we've done together to make the web work without third-party cookies.

The unfortunate climb-down will also have secondary effects, as it is likely to delay cross-browser work on effective alternatives to third-party cookies. We fear it will have an overall detrimental impact on the cause of improving privacy on the web. We sincerely hope that Google reverses this decision and re-commits to a path towards removal of third-party cookies.

An unexpected disapperance of saved passwords "impacted Chrome web browser users from all over the world," writes Forbes, "leaving them unable to find any passwords already saved using the Chrome password manager." Newly saved passwords were also rendered invisible to the affected users. Google, which has now fixed the issue, said that the problem was limited to the M127 version of Chrome Browser on the Windows platform.

The precise number of users to be hit by the Google password manager vanishing act is hard to pin down. However, working on the basis that there are more than 3 billion Chrome web browser users, with Windows users counting for the vast majority of these, it's possible to come up with an estimated number. Google said that 25% of the user base saw the configuration change rolled out, which, by my calculations, is around 750 million. Of these, around 2%, according to Google's estimation, were hit by the password manager issue. That means around 15 million users have seen their passwords vanish into thin air.

Google said that an interim workaround was provided at the time, which involved the particularly user-unfriendly process of launching the Chrome browser with a command line flag of " — enable-features=SkipUndecryptablePasswords." Thankfully, the full fix that has now been rolled out just requires users to restart their Chrome browser to take effect.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hacker News: Google said it's adding new security warnings when downloading potentially suspicious and malicious files via its Chrome web browser. "We have replaced our previous warning messages with more detailed ones that convey more nuance about the nature of the danger and can help users make more informed decisions," Jasika Bawa, Lily Chen, and Daniel Rubery from the Chrome Security team said. To that end, the search giant is introducing a two-tier download warning taxonomy based on verdicts provided by Google Safe Browsing: Suspicious files and Dangerous files. Each category comes with its own iconography, color, and text to distinguish them from one another and help users make an informed choice.

Google is also adding what's called automatic deep scans for users who have opted-in to the Enhanced Protection mode of Safe Browsing in Chrome so that they don't have to be prompted each time to send the files to Safe Browsing for deep scanning before opening them. In cases where such files are embedded within password-protected archives, users now have the option to "enter the file's password and send it along with the file to Safe Browsing so that the file can be opened and a deep scan may be performed." Google emphasized that the files and their associated passwords are deleted a short time after the scan and that the collected data is only used for improving download protections.

In a blog post today, Google said it has an "updated approach" that won't involve "deprecating third-party cookies" in Chrome. Instead, it's introducing "a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing," which they'd be able to adjust at any time. Digiday reports: Google executives are already discussing this pivot with regulators including the U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and plan to do the same with the industry soon. For now, details on what this actually means remain light. And as for a timeline, Google seems to have learned its lesson from the numerous delays to its cookie-killing plans -- there isn't one. "As this moves forward, it remains important for developers to have privacy-preserving alternatives," Anthony Chavez, vp of the Privacy Sandbox, said in the blog post. "We'll continue to make the Privacy Sandbox APIs available and invest in them to further improve privacy and utility."

For those who have poured time and effort into third-party cookie alternatives, fear not: Google will keep the APIs in the Sandbox. Your work isn't going to waste. In fact, the plan is to continue to invest in them, continued Chavez, to further improve "privacy and utility." Plus, additional privacy controls, like the recently announced IP Protection (i.e. IP masking for privacy protection) in Chrome's Incognito mode, will be added to the Sandbox. "We developed the Privacy Sandbox with the goal of finding innovative solutions that meaningfully improve online privacy while preserving an ad-supported internet that supports a vibrant ecosystem of publishers, connects businesses with customers, and offers all of us free access to a wide range of content," Chavez wrote in the blog post. Or, to put it another way, the Sandbox isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

"The latest version of the Linux kernel adds an array of improvements," writes the blog OMG Ubuntu, " including a new memory sealing system call, a speed boost for AES-XTS encryption on Intel and AMD CPUs, and expanding Rust language support within the kernel to RISC-V." Plus, like in all kernel releases, there's a glut of groundwork to offer "initial support" for upcoming CPUs, GPUs, NPUs, Wi-Fi, and other hardware (that most of us don't use yet, but require Linux support to be in place for when devices that use them filter out)...

Linux 6.10 adds (after much gnashing) the mseal() system call to prevent changes being made to portions of the virtual address space. For now, this will mainly benefit Google Chrome, which plans to use it to harden its sandboxing. Work is underway by kernel contributors to allow other apps to benefit, though. A similarly initially-controversial change merged is a new memory-allocation profiling subsystem. This helps developers fine-tune memory usage and more readily identify memory leaks. An explainer from LWN summarizes it well.

Elsewhere, Linux 6.10 offers encrypted interactions with trusted platform modules (TPM) in order to "make the kernel's use of the TPM reasonably robust in the face of external snooping and packet alteration attacks". The documentation for this feature explains: "for every in-kernel operation we use null primary salted HMAC to protect the integrity [and] we use parameter encryption to protect key sealing and parameter decryption to protect key unsealing and random number generation." Sticking with security, the Linux kernel's Landlock security module can now apply policies to ioctl() calls (Input/Output Control), restricting potential misuse and improving overall system security.

On the networking side there's significant performance improvements to zero-copy send operations using io_uring, and the newly-added ability to "bundle" multiple buffers for send and receive operations also offers an uptick in performance...

A couple of months ago Canonical announced Ubuntu support for the RISC-V Milk-V Mars single-board computer. Linux 6.10 mainlines support for the Milk-V Mars, which will make that effort a lot more viable (especially with the Ubuntu 24.10 kernel likely to be v6.10 or newer). Others RISC-V improvements abound in Linux 6.10, including support for the Rust language, boot image compression in BZ2, LZ4, LZMA, LZO, and Zstandard (instead of only Gzip); and newer AMD GPUs thanks to kernel-mode FPU support in RISC-V.
Phoronix has their own rundown of Linux 6.10, plus a list of some of the highlights, which includes:

• The initial DRM Panic infrastructure
• The new Panthor DRM driver for newer Arm Mali graphics
• Better AMD ROCm/AMDKFD support for "small" Ryzen APUs and new additions for AMD Zen 5.
• AMD GPU display support on RISC-V hardware thanks to RISC-V kernel mode FPU
• More Intel Xe2 graphics preparations
• Better IO_uring zero-copy performance
• Faster AES-XTS disk/file encryption with modern Intel and AMD CPUs
• Continued online repair work for XFS
• Steam Deck IMU support
• TPM bus encryption and integrity protection

An anonymous reader shares a report: ChromeOS Flex extends the lifespan of older hardware and contributes to reducing e-waste, making it an environmentally conscious choice. Unfortunately, recent developments hint at a potential end for ChromeOS Flex. As detailed in a June 12 blog post by Prajakta Gudadhe, senior director of engineering for ChromeOS, and Alexander Kuscher, senior director of product management for ChromeOS, Google's announcement about integrating ChromeOS with Android to enhance AI capabilities suggests that Flex might not be part of this future.

Google's plan, as detailed, suggests that ChromeOS Flex could be phased out, leaving its current users in a difficult position. The ChromiumOS community around ChromeOS Flex may attempt to adjust to these changes if Google open sources ChromeOS Flex, but this is not a guarantee. In the meantime, users may want to consider alternatives, such as various Linux distributions, to keep their older hardware functional.

It's been adapted into a graphic novel, a videogame, a radio play, and an opera, according to Wikipedia — which also describes years of trying to adapt Neuromancer into a movie. "The landmark 1984 cyberpunk novel has been on Hollywood's wishlist for decades," writes Gizmodo, "with multiple filmmakers attempting to bring it to the big screen." (Back in 2010, Slashdot's CmdrTaco even posted an update with the headline "Neuromancer Movie In Your Future?" with a 2011 story promising the movie deal was "moving forward....")

But now Deadline reports it's becoming a 10-episode series on Apple TV+ (co-produced by Apple Studios) starring Callum Turner and Brianna Middleton: Created for television by Graham Roland and JD Dillard, Neuromancer follows a damaged, top-rung super-hacker named Case (Turner) who is thrust into a web of digital espionage and high stakes crime with his partner Molly (Middleton), a razor-girl assassin with mirrored eyes, aiming to pull a heist on a corporate dynasty with untold secrets.
More from Gizmodo: "We're incredibly excited to be bringing this iconic property to Apple TV+," Roland and Dillard said in a statement. "Since we became friends nearly 10 years ago, we've looked for something to team up on, so this collaboration marks a dream come true. Neuromancer has inspired so much of the science fiction that's come after it and we're looking forward to bringing television audiences into Gibson's definitive 'cyberpunk' world."
The novel launched Gibson's "Sprawl" trilogy of novels (building on the dystopia in his 1982 short story "Burning Chrome"), also resurrecting the "Molly Millions" character from Johnny Mnemonic — an even earlier short story from 1981...

Google is severing its trust in Entrust after what it describes as a protracted period of failures around compliance and general improvements. From a report: Entrust is one of the many certificate authorities (CA) used by Chrome to verify that the websites end users visit are trustworthy. From November 1 in Chrome 127, which recently entered beta, TLS server authentication certificates validating to Entrust or AffirmTrust roots won't be trusted by default.

Google pointed to a series of incident reports over the past few years concerning Entrust, saying they "highlighted a pattern of concerning behaviors" that have ultimately seen the security company fall down in Google's estimations. The incidents have "eroded confidence in [Entrust's] competence, reliability, and integrity as a publicly trusted CA owner," Google stated in a blog. The move follows a May publication by Mozilla, which compiled a sprawling list of Entrust's certificate issues between March and May this year. Entrust -- after an initial PR disaster -- acknowledged its procedural failures and said it was treating the feedback as a learning opportunity.

Richard Speed reports via The Register: Privacy campaigner noyb has filed a GDPR complaint regarding Google's Privacy Sandbox, alleging that turning on a "Privacy Feature" in the Chrome browser resulted in unwanted tracking by the US megacorp. The Privacy Sandbox API was introduced in 2023 as part of Google's grand plan to eliminate third-party tracking cookies. Rather than relying on those cookies, website developers can call the API to display ads matched to a user's interests. In the announcement, Google's VP of the Privacy Sandbox initiative called it "a significant step on the path towards a fundamentally more private web."

However, according to noyb, the problem is that although Privacy Sandbox is advertised as an improvement over third-party tracking, that tracking doesn't go away. Instead, it is done within the browser by Google itself. To comply with the rules, Google needs informed consent from users, which is where issues start. Noyb wrote today: "Google's internal browser tracking was introduced to users via a pop-up that said 'turn on ad privacy feature' after opening the Chrome browser. In the European Union, users are given the choice to either 'Turn it on' or to say 'No thanks,' so to refuse consent." Users would be forgiven for thinking that 'turn on ad privacy feature' would protect them from tracking. However, what it actually does is turn on first-party tracking.

Max Schrems, honorary chairman of noyb, claimed: "Google has simply lied to its users. People thought they were agreeing to a privacy feature, but were tricked into accepting Google's first-party ad tracking. "Consent has to be informed, transparent, and fair to be legal. Google has done the exact opposite." Noyb noted that Google had argued "choosing to click on 'Turn it on' would indeed be considered consent to tracking under Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR."

In an interview with PCWorld's Mark Hachman, Google's ChromeOS chief said the company is cautiously exploring a Recall-like feature for Chromebooks, dubbed "memory." Microsoft's AI-powered Recall feature for Windows 11 was unveiled at the company's Build 2024 conference last month. The feature aims to improve local searches by making them as efficient as web searches, allowing users to quickly retrieve anything they've seen on their PC. Using voice commands and contextual clues, Recall can find specific emails, documents, chat threads, and even PowerPoint slides. Given the obvious privacy and security concerns, many users have denounced the feature, describing it as "literal spyware or malware." PCWorld reports: I sat down with John Solomon, the vice president at Google responsible for ChromeOS, for a lengthy interview around what it means for Google's low-cost Google platform as the PC industry moved to AI PCs. Microsoft, of course, is launching Copilot+ PCs alongside Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite -- an Arm chip. And Chromebooks, of course, have a long history with Arm. But it's Recall that we eventually landed upon -- or, more precisely, how Google sidles into the same space. Recall is great in theory, but in practice may be more problematic.) Recall the Project Astra demo that Google showed off at its Google I/O conference. One of the key though understated aspects of it was how Astra "remembered" where the user's glasses were.

Astra didn't appear to be an experience that could be replicated on the Chromebook. Most users aren't going to carry a Chromebook around (a device which typically lacks a rear camera) visually identifying things. Solomon respectfully disagreed. "I think there's a piece of it which is very relevant, which is this notion of having some kind of context and memory of what's been happening on the device," Solomon said. "So think of something that's like, maybe viewing your screen and then you walk away, you get distracted, you chat to someone at the watercooler and you come back. You could have some kind of rewind function, you could have some kind of recorder function that would kind of bring you back to that. So I think that there is a crossover there.

"We're actually talking to that team about where the use case could be," Solomon added of the "memory" concept. "But I think there's something there in terms of screen capture in a way that obviously doesn't feel creepy and feels like the user's in control." That sounds a lot like Recall! But Solomon was quick to point out that one of the things that has turned off users to Recall was the lack of user control: deciding when, where, and if to turn it on. "I'm not going to talk about Recall, but I think the reason that some people feel it's creepy is when it doesn't feel useful, and it doesn't feel like something they initiated or that they get a clear benefit from it," Solomon said. "If the user says like -- let's say we're having a meeting, and discussing complex topics. There's a benefit of running a recorded function if at the end of it it can be useful for creating notes and the action items. But you as a user need to put that on and decide where you want to have that."

Google has acquired software virtualization company Cameyo to enhance ChromeOS's support for virtualized Windows apps. The acquisition follows a partnership between the two companies last year, which aimed to provide businesses with a seamless virtual application experience on ChromeOS devices. With Cameyo's technology, Google seeks to attract more enterprises to adopt ChromeOS by offering enhanced compatibility with legacy Windows applications while maintaining the simplicity and security of the ChromeOS ecosystem.

The companies didn't reveal the financial terms of the deal.

Google has published an update on the deprecation timeline of so-called Manifest V2 extensions in the Chrome web browser. Starting this June, Chrome will inform users with classic extensions about the deprecation. From a report: Manifests are rulesets for extensions. They define the capabilities of extensions. When Google published the initial Manifest V3 draft, it was criticized heavily for it. This initial draft had significant impact on content blockers, privacy extensions, and many other extension types. Many called it the end of adblockers in Chrome because of that. In the years that followed, Google postponed the introduction and updated the draft several times to address some of these concerns.

Despite all the changes, Manifest V3 is still limiting certain capabilities. The developer of uBlock Origin listed some of these on GitHub. According to the information, current uBlock Origin capabilities such as dynamic filtering, certain per-site switches, or regex-based filters are not supported by Manifest V3. The release of uBlock Origin Minus highlights this. It is a Manifest V3 extension, but limited in comparison to the Manifest V2-based uBlock Origin.