I don't understand the skeptical scare quotes around "separate cookie". If you read the linked bugs, you would see that when SafeBrowsing was originally added to Firefox, it used the same cookie jar, which meant that SafeBrowsing requests included a cookie for safebrowsing.google.com (necessary for it to function) but also all cookies for *.google.com, which is clearly undesireable from a privacy perspective and has since been fixed.
If pattern-of-life analysis is a concern of yours, you should be using the Tor Browser and taking a whole host of other precautions. Fiddling with a bunch of prefs in about:config and using an ad blocker isn't going to cut it.
And again, it's not a zero-sum game. Safe Browsing provides some meaningful benefit of terms of protecting users from malicious websites, which on balance is probably worth the compromise to their privacy (which is comparatively minor and was minimized through careful and intentional engineering).
I agree that it's worthwhile to try to stop the trend towards increasing surveillance of Internet users using whatever techniques are available, but it's really at the core of the Internet's business model and some fundamental changes are necessary.
If pattern-of-life analysis is a concern of yours, you should be using the Tor Browser and taking a whole host of other precautions. Fiddling with a bunch of prefs in about:config and using an ad blocker isn't going to cut it.
And again, it's not a zero-sum game. Safe Browsing provides some meaningful benefit of terms of protecting users from malicious websites, which on balance is probably worth the compromise to their privacy (which is comparatively minor and was minimized through careful and intentional engineering).
I agree that it's worthwhile to try to stop the trend towards increasing surveillance of Internet users using whatever techniques are available, but it's really at the core of the Internet's business model and some fundamental changes are necessary.