[Suggestion] Option to disable sites' favicon retrieval

[ghost]

OSM retrieves all maps sites' favicons with http://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=

Unsecured moreover when all Google domains have been secured for years.
Anyway, I'd suggest either an option to disable retrieval of these favicons (connections show google, google, google...) or, better, that these favicons be included in OSM : that would weigh, what? A few bytes ...

Pity for an extension which is otherwise so well built, so handy.

[tankaru]

I considered retaining the favicons in OpenSwitchMaps, but I wasn't sure if it was copyright permissible to store and use the favicons in my repository.

Do you know any general guidelines as to whether it is possible to store favicons and use them for personal projects?

[ghost]

Do you know any general guidelines as to whether it is possible to store favicons and use them for personal projects?

I'm afraid I don't; in fact the copyright problematic you mention is brought to my attention only now.
Should storing sites' favicons pose whatever problem it is always possible to replace these favicons by a generic one, i.e. the browser's default icon when the user has opted to disable sites' favicons : pref(“browser.chrome.site_icons”, false); Given disabling sites' favicons retrieval would be an option it would be consequently the user's choice to assume whatever replacement favicon (or none). Other extensions offer this option and replace when applicable the favicon either by a blank (not very nice unless site name is shifted to the left) either by a generic icon.

[ghost]

Latest OpenSwitchMaps 1.3.5 still doesn't include an option to not retrieve favicons with Google.
This would require one line of code, several extensions include such an option.
If user's wish is to not retrieve favicon then replace map sites favicons with the browser's default icon : this is easier than 1+1
Some developers create great extensions but completely underestimate privacy concerns. This is the case of OpenSwitchMaps.
I will not use it as such and recommend to avoid it :

• opening the extension's options calls Google to retrieve ALL map sites' favicons
• clicking on the toolbar button (to switch maps) calls again Google.
  This is insane.

[tankaru]

This is insane.

I am probably insane since I implemented such an insane feature.

[ghost]

You can't be insane when developing such a valuable extension. Anyway I never tell anyone he/she is insane because I'm not qualified to dare such an analysis and, should I be, I wouldn't want to hurt that person. Lastly, it'd be unproductive.
I was referring to a valuable extension which has no option to disable the process by which it gathers sites' favicons via Google, leading to such a notorious privacy breach that several extension developers have added the option to not retrieve those favicons. That's all. I'm annoyed because I like your extension; if I didn't care I wouldn't even have posted this suggestion.
Maybe one day you'll add that option. who knows? No bad feelings, I was (am) simply bothered by this only handicap, as i see it.

[limex]

@Cade66:
Your arguments might be valid. Your tone isn't.
You are not writing to a corporate support forum for a product you paid a licence. There is no obligation to react to your complains.
Please relax.

If you need this change : Do it for yourself and share it.
Others might not share your passion or urgency for privacy. Even that that is ok because it is their decision to accept possible consequences.

[ghost]

@limex oh! the tone. True that the initial suggestion became a complaint and you are right, I should have kept the suggestion tone. Relax, Max :=)
The suggestion remains valid nevertheless, IMO, valid because legitimate. You do agree that my arguments might be valid. The might I guess suggests you have no intention of modifying whatsoever. OK. Unfortunately I'm as code illiterate as I'm a fan of maps and aviation. But I read you loud and clear, no further complains! let's stay in good terms. I said my word, you replied yours. Life.

The option I suggested could have been an opt-out, allowing everyone to tailor privacy implications... but OK, I get it!