As others have pointed out - the problem is not locking your machine when you leave it alone. Suppose that you're using whatever browser that you think does this right, and an adversary gets unencumbered access to the machine because you didn't lock it while you were away. How much protection do you think FireFox or whatever is going to provide relative to the keylogger that is now running on the box?
It's not a slam dunk that Chrome would be better if it had a master password anyway given that rarely used passwords tend to be forgotten quickly, and no one wants Chrome to inflict us with some Vista UAC clone.
Finally, it's extremely annoying to read hyperbolic comments in which the author responds to criticism by redirecting to some irrelevant corner case viz "my post refers to a more general use of Chrome". If that were really the case, then why "the sky is falling" tone in the original post?
With Chrome in "civilian" hands by the millions the sky could very well be falling.
How many pieces of software on a typical computer hold information that, if it got into the wrong hands, could literally ruin somene's life? For the average Internet user the browser is the only answer. I can't understand why it is that it is wrong to demand at least enough access difficulty to frustrate a smart ten year old.
Here's the other problem: Google, as far as I know, does not make the user aware of the potential exposure. This can't be good.
It's not a slam dunk that Chrome would be better if it had a master password anyway given that rarely used passwords tend to be forgotten quickly, and no one wants Chrome to inflict us with some Vista UAC clone.
Finally, it's extremely annoying to read hyperbolic comments in which the author responds to criticism by redirecting to some irrelevant corner case viz "my post refers to a more general use of Chrome". If that were really the case, then why "the sky is falling" tone in the original post?