11–20 of 450 posts
> What we plan to do now is run an opt-out SHIELD study [6] to validate our implementation of RAPPOR. IMHO, this is a bad idea. Many people I know already use Firefox because they're weary to give Google (Chrome) all their data. Firefox should make this feature opt-in only.
Also interesting: the method they plan on using for anonymising this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy#Principle...
If that is not sufficiently anonymous, then please submit the reasoning why to Mozilla.
If they start opt-out tracking using the same approach as Google I do not see any reason to use it nor install it for my friends and family. That's some data for you, Mozilla.
> What we plan to do now is run an opt-out SHIELD study [6] to validate our implementation of RAPPOR. IMHO, this is a bad idea. Many people I know already use Firefox because they're weary to give Google (Chrome) all their data. Firefox should make this feature opt-in only.
I say it over and over. You can not completely anonymize data with any reliability. Please note the qualifier, many systems work for many vectors, but any sufficiently large dataset can be used to graph habits and correlate them. Maybe there is a safe way, but I put the onus of proving it on the person implementing it.
Note: "planning" means "reaching out for feedback about". Also interesting: the method they plan on using for anonymising this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy#Principle... If that is not sufficiently anonymous, then please submit the reasoning why to Mozilla.
EDIT: OK. It's boolean flags (like use of flash) plus an eTLD+1 (example.org; not myname.example.org?). Even so, I believe this tracking should be opt-in with a disclosure screen that explains exactly what Mozilla is recording. Informed consent is a practice we should be promoting, even if it seems unnecessary.
I am starting to think that they just don't want people to use Firefox.
Yeah, I know it's free software, so I have no right to complain. I just wonder why?