Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 450 posts

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#401

Post by comex »

RaleyField wrote: post #356
Ajedi32 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'll be an opt-out, just as there always has. That's not what's being discussed here. The question is whether to allow these stats to be collected as an opt-out vs opt-in.

Before you send any telemetry get informed consent by presenting the user a dialog enumerating everything that you are sending and I'd be fine with opt-out otherwise this is a dark pattern and you are getting on my shit list.

If you present the user a dialog, that is effectively opt-in, which is what already exists.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#402

Post by comex »

falcolas wrote: post #272
Yoric wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One: I'm pretty sure that the idea is to report back random (existing) domains, yes. Two: That's an interesting question. You'd need to ask it to someone with more domain knowledge than me.

> I'm pretty sure that the idea is to report back random (existing) domains, yes. Here's a concern that comes up from that implementation option: any outliers from the set of existing domains (which would likely simply be implemented as a list of strings) would immediately be able to be called out as a "True" value, while a single reporting of a domain could reliably called out as a "False" value. Unless, of course,…

RAPPOR uses a Bloom filter. It doesn't report the domain itself; it reports (a corrupted version of) a handful of bits of a hash of the domain.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#403

Post by zaro »

froydnj wrote: post #152
madez wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would FireFox be on a dead spiral for not tracking it's users? If they want browsing data, then can use their own.

(Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla) The problem with our own browsing data--by which I'm assuming you mean the browsing habits of our ~1000 employees--is that it's wildly non-representative of the broader population. For instance, people here routinely have browser sessions with 10, 100, or even 1000+ tabs. These numbers also indicate that the browser is an application you start, and then you just leave up for a while,…

Thnak you for the detailed explanation!

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#404

Post by NabenHarb »

yakult wrote: post #394
sp332 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Any data collection at all deanonymizes the user, cf panopticlick. This isn't true. Panopticlick collects a ton of data about your browser that this proposal will not. There has been a lot of research done in this area and we know how to collect anonymous datasets. https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6981

Look at it from a security-conscious user's perspective: I would have to verify that: 1. The concept is sound. 2. It is implemented as described. 3. It is implemented with no bugs. 4. Mozilla is trustworthy 5. Any third-parties Mozilla involves in this process are also trustworthy. 6. All of the above will remain true. Doing this would take a tremendous amount of both time and expertise, if even possible. If every pi…

Except if you actually read and understood the link, points #1, 4, 5 aren't a concern. Moreover, points #2, 3, and 6 apply to just about every piece of software used.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#405

Post by yoasif_ »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #364
kannanvijayan wrote: post #71

I can do a quick summary of what's being proposed and why. I work in the JS team at Mozilla and deal directly with the problems caused by insufficient data. Please note that I'm speaking for myself here, and not on behalf of Mozilla as a whole. Tracking down regressions, crashes, and perf issues without good telemetry about how often it's happening and in what context. Issues that might have otherwise taken a few day…

Top-level domains are still betraying the user's privacy. Does it bug me that PornoTube is significantly laggier on Firefox than YouTube? Sure. Do I want Mozilla to know that I'm visiting it? Hell no.

They wouldn't know that you are visiting it, just that someone is visiting it.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#406

Post by yoasif_ »

noir_lord wrote: post #121
kannanvijayan wrote: post #71

I can do a quick summary of what's being proposed and why. I work in the JS team at Mozilla and deal directly with the problems caused by insufficient data. Please note that I'm speaking for myself here, and not on behalf of Mozilla as a whole. Tracking down regressions, crashes, and perf issues without good telemetry about how often it's happening and in what context. Issues that might have otherwise taken a few day…

No compromise, I switched to FF on Android to avoid this crap from Chrome and now you'll do it as well. I look forwards to the fork.

They already said that anything they would do would have an opt-out available.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#407

Post by yakult »

NabenHarb wrote: post #404
yakult wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it from a security-conscious user's perspective: I would have to verify that: 1. The concept is sound. 2. It is implemented as described. 3. It is implemented with no bugs. 4. Mozilla is trustworthy 5. Any third-parties Mozilla involves in this process are also trustworthy. 6. All of the above will remain true. Doing this would take a tremendous amount of both time and expertise, if even possible. If every pi…

Except if you actually read and understood the link, points #1, 4, 5 aren't a concern. Moreover, points #2, 3, and 6 apply to just about every piece of software used.

what percentage of FF users on the planet do you expect could read a paper on differential privacy and actually verify those points, while understanding all the ifs and gotchas, and be able to tell if any of the arguments are wrong? What percentage of that elite group would actually be willing to devote the time and energy, for free, for every one of the thousands of softwares they use?

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#408

Post by quantum_magpie »

noir_lord wrote: post #121
kannanvijayan wrote: post #71

I can do a quick summary of what's being proposed and why. I work in the JS team at Mozilla and deal directly with the problems caused by insufficient data. Please note that I'm speaking for myself here, and not on behalf of Mozilla as a whole. Tracking down regressions, crashes, and perf issues without good telemetry about how often it's happening and in what context. Issues that might have otherwise taken a few day…

No compromise, I switched to FF on Android to avoid this crap from Chrome and now you'll do it as well. I look forwards to the fork.

Palemoon on android works wonderfully.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#409

Post by feelin_googley »

kannanvijayan wrote: post #71

I can do a quick summary of what's being proposed and why. I work in the JS team at Mozilla and deal directly with the problems caused by insufficient data. Please note that I'm speaking for myself here, and not on behalf of Mozilla as a whole. Tracking down regressions, crashes, and perf issues without good telemetry about how often it's happening and in what context. Issues that might have otherwise taken a few day…

".. we can't build a better browser without good information on how it's behaving in the wild."

Who decides what is a "better" browser?

1. Is it the authors? Do they write the software for themselves and agree to share it for free with anyone who may want to use it?

2. Is it the users? Do the authors solicit feedback from users to determine what users want? If users demanded a browser with no default telemetry, would the authors comply?

3. Is it third parties who have an interest in the behavior of users? For example, domain name industry, ad-supported businesses, their employees or advertisers themselves. Are the authors on salary, compensated indirectly from advertising revenue? Or does it come from somewhere else?

4. Is it all of the above? If we follow the money where does it lead? Whose decision of what is "better" is the most important?

Mozilla is descended from a defunct 1990's company that aimed to license a web browser to corporations for a fee. It would have been very clear in that case who the browser was being written for. But today, it is not so clear who Mozilla is serving. It resembles some sort of "multi-stakeholder" project.

It would be nice to have a browser that fits description 1 or 2. I believe there are plenty of folks, including some developers, who would appreciate a browser with no default telemetry. By virtue of the total absence of data collection, they might consider it "better" than alternative browsers that "need telemetry" for whatever reason.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#410

Post by NabenHarb »

yakult wrote: post #407
NabenHarb wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except if you actually read and understood the link, points #1, 4, 5 aren't a concern. Moreover, points #2, 3, and 6 apply to just about every piece of software used.

what percentage of FF users on the planet do you expect could read a paper on differential privacy and actually verify those points, while understanding all the ifs and gotchas, and be able to tell if any of the arguments are wrong? What percentage of that elite group would actually be willing to devote the time and energy, for free, for every one of the thousands of softwares they use?

Not many, certainly. Which is perhaps why it's better for this to be implemented (since differential privacy is a known, rigorous definition for privacy), rather than to leave it up to the larger majority of users who (by your implication) don't understand it and won't be bothered to understand it.
Post reply on HN