this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
145 points (96.8% liked)
Firefox
17942 readers
32 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would support something like this. Or something like what brave does. Or something like GNU Taler.
Pretty much anything but sending extra tracking data out.
I feel a little worried that I'm not even sure how Mozilla could monetize this. At least when Brave does its ads, people know how Brave makes their cut.
Mozilla doesn't monetise this; the whole point is to change the ecosystem to enable more privacy. It's not a moneygrab.
Okay, so the end result is a privacy drain for users, extra data that Mozilla slurps up but somehow does not benefit from, no benefit to legitimate advertisers (versus a/b url testing), and no draw for privacy invasive ones.
Then WTF
Tell me, what data about you does anyone get? And why is there no benefit to legitimate advertisers who will be able to know which of their ads have resulted in sales, even if they don't know anything about you specifically?
The draw for privacy-invasive ones indeed needs a couple of extra steps, which requires being able to see the long-term vision: having a privacy-friendly alternative available enables both legislators to enact stricter legislation, as well as decrease the incentive to keep engaging in the cat-and-mouse game with browsers, trying to find new way to violate people's privacy.
For starters, Mozilla Corp gets non-anonymous data like your IP address, time of connection, and all the advertisement telemetry.
Then they tell you "trust us with this". The problem is, they have already broken their trust by refusing to tell the user, and doubling down upon this.
Because advertisers already have better options.
*If you trust the advertiser, they can do it on their own. If you don't trust the advertiser, then the additional third party does nothing.
Sorry, I meant: what data does anyone get through this new capability? Mozilla could always get your IP address and other connection data when e.g. Firefox checks for updates, or add-ons, or safebrowsing lists, etc. Could you name one or two things that are part of "all the advertisement telemetry" that is new?
Better in the sense that they provide the same information with privacy guarantees that are just as good?
Also, why do you need a guaranteed privacy increase? Why would we want to miss "opportunity to get us a future with improved privacy for everyone"?
If your argument is that nothing new is being collected, then there is no reason for Mozilla Corp to collect it and you agree with me that they should roll these changes back.
Because I hate it when corporations like Google and Mozilla lie by calling something private when it endangers privacy rather than enhancing it.
Here's a question for you: in what universe do corporations somehow implement Mozilla's proprietary technology and actually increase privacy?
I'll also argue that no new data is being collected for vertical tabs, but I don't see why that should mean that vertical tabs should be rolled back.
Hopefully in this universe, a couple of years down the road, when legislators have become confident that they can legislate away the most invasive practices without putting lots of potential voters out of a job.
If you believe PPA isn't collecting new data, then you haven't pointed to it doing anything else. You make it out to be worthless, and I'm trying to ascertain whether you believe this authentically.
Vertical tabs serve a distinct UX and UI function and I could write paragraphs about it. And even if I couldn't, others have. For years.
Nobody has asked for Mozilla's bullshit until it was pushed on them, but I'd be happy to hear out your post-hoc rationalization if you have actual things it is rather than your interesting claims about what it isn't.
I'm saying it's not collecting new personal data. It will be helping advertisers know how many of the clicks on a particular button were preceded by seeing a particular ad, but they won't know a single thing about the people that did that.
It's just collecting the same data that people have already opted out of, and more often.
You are also using a misleading statement, either maliciously or unknowingly, to make a false statement:
Due to the fact that Mozilla has broken users trust by sneakily injecting this extra data collection, I don't see any reason a rational person would presume Mozilla should be trusted on further statements regarding their sneaky activity. Do you?
Of course whoever make my browser had the capability to siphon it all off. But nothing in the PPA news has given me reason to believe that is happening: nobody has pointed out the source code that does it, or intercepted network requests in which they see it happening, or even just been able to name a single piece of personal data that is apparently being sold to advertising companies. You have not done so either.
I also think that if Mozilla was trying to be sneaky, they could have done a better job than literally mentioning it in the release notes.
So by your metric, Mozilla has been dishonest compared to even Google in the data sucking they've implemented, since even Google announced it, correct?
Do you genuinely believe the average user reads the release notes? If you do, I call bullshit.
The main difference between Mozilla and Google is that Google is actually sucking up your data. For example, I can specifically mention that they've got stored where you log in often, what age they think you are, what gender, how rich you likely are, etc. Even if they're completely honest about it, that's not good. You can't make such a list about Mozilla, and Mozilla doesn't actively try to hide what they are doing (non-invasive measurement of ad performance).
Of course, the average user doesn't read the release notes. (I'd go even further: the average user doesn't read anything.) But the only reason you know about PPA, is because Mozilla explicitly called it out in the release notes, after which some bloggers decided to make a stink.
You've accused Mozilla of two separate things:
So you agree with #1 but are upset I have not provided specifics... FakeSpot and Anonym privacy policies are downright evil, the specifics are there.
For #2, you also agree with me, you just have a much lower ethical bar than I do for Mozilla. It's always the Mozilla fans who act like it's a terrible company...
Regarding the claim that Mozilla is good and Google is bad, that's based on a presumption. Considering all the terrible behavior Mozilla has engaged in, I see no reason to continue presuming it. It would be as clueless as taking Google at its word with "do no evil."
No; I have claimed that it doesn't collect personal data. You're disputing that claim, but if you can't mention a single piece of data, then I'm not inclined to believe you. (Fakespot and Anonym are completely unrelated to PPA. I'm not necessarily interested in branching out to discussing those as well, though I expect that we're more aligned on them anyway.)
No, I'm claiming that Google's actions in the past have been worse than Mozilla's, and I have named concrete actions that Google has done that Mozilla has not.
But go on, keep on telling people to avoid Mozilla, and see if that'll bring us a better world.
Fakespot and Anonym are completely Mozilla Corp. And their privacy policies are a clear violation of the Mozilla Manifesto.
I have named concrete privacy policies Mozilla has adopted, but unfortunately you didn't want to look into them.
I am using the Mozilla guidelines on how to treat Mozilla: encouraging other people to tell them, plainly and openly, that they need to knock off their terrible behavior.
Again, bringing Fakespot and Anonym is just moving the goalposts. You were complaining about PPA, and have failed to mention concrete data points that shares about you. It's really not interesting to move on to another subject only to have the goalposts moved again.
You said
I responded to you in kind.
OK, fair enough, that was me allowing myself getting sidetracked. You still haven't answered the earlier question about what extra data PPA provides anyone, though. I'll leave it at that unless you can name one concrete piece of data.
The burden of evidence is on Mozilla to tell us exactly what data they are consuming, down to the byte. Otherwise, informed consent cannot be given.
And Mozilla should not be the thief of informed consent.