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

Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#141

Post by errantmind »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #81
WA wrote: post #4

Surprisingly difficult to understand what this thing is or does. Seems like you can "donate" your browsing behavior to science for doing studies in a kinda anonymous privacy protecting way.

> Surprisingly difficult to understand what this thing is or does. Social science is a hard science, in the sense that it is very difficult to comprehend the technical details without adequate training. > Seems like you can “donate” your browsing behavior to science More than that, you can donate the following, as well: > Your Rally demographics and an optional short survey For the COVID study, for example. https://r…

Just because statistics is involved doesn't make Social Science a 'hard' science

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#142

Post by Nicksil »

errantmind wrote: post #140
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional reminder that Mozilla just recently had to go through a round of layoffs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120336

The fact they have significantly more than 250 employees in the first place is a bit mind boggling. As far as I can tell most of the spending is unrelated to Firefox. What do all of these people do and why are they needed?

>The fact they have significantly more than 250 employees in the first place is a bit mind boggling. As far as I can tell most of the spending is unrelated to Firefox. What do all of these people do and why are they needed?

I sometimes have the same reaction when learning the number of people employed for what I would have otherwise thought to be some meager thing. Then I get reminded about the folks over in external/internal support; marketing; design; IT/infrastructure; legal; compliance; etc.

Here's Mozilla's listing:

https://careers.mozilla.org/listings/

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#143

Post by errantmind »

>What if, instead of companies taking your data without giving you a say, you could select who gets access to your data and put it to work for public good?

Implied false dichotomy. What if I refuse to use companies that do not fully encrypt my data in such a a way as to them not having any access to it.

Also, Mozilla isn't going even half this far. They are relying on a contractual obligation with their partners and internal audits to protect my identity. I'm skeptical of their ability to protect my data to the point I will never use this service.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#144

Post by mikeiz404 »

elliekelly wrote: post #48
thombles wrote: post #7

Whoever wrote this piece is way too close to... whatever it is Mozilla is doing here. There seems to be an assumption that users will be gleeful to throw their data at legitimate researchers from legitimate institutions doing legitimate work. What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else? Why? What's in it for them? Since when was giving our data to third parties a good idea? There is literally no motivatio…

> privacy-preserving data collection system I hate this. Viscerally. Why, why, WHY does every “privacy first” system, platform, whatever, start with the presumption that some people should get your data and it’s just a matter of vetting the “good” groups from the “bad” groups. No. That isn’t privacy. No one should get my data. And it’s ridiculous that all of these companies try to position their data grabbing project…

I see where you are coming from but it is opt-in so I don’t believe that is theft.

All scientific research requires data and certain types of research require certain types of data to be useful. I’m personally against ad driven data collection because 1) I don’t think as a whole its outcomes, both first order and second order, are in the long term interests of the viewers or society. However assuming you can trust the data collected and how it is used is only as stated then studies looking to understand online interactions, where more and more of our lives are being lived, with the interest of improving long term outcomes seems like a good thing to me. Of course once the data is out of your hands you loose control over it so it’s good that Mozilla is doing data minimization and aggregation to help reduce the impacts of that.

I guess it really boils down to trust, intent, our ability to choose, and transparency which has not been respected in many cases so I very much do understand the skepticism. Here is to hoping this will be different. So far, in my opinion, this looks to be the case.

Some of the current studies [1]:

- Political and COVID-19 News

- Your Time Online and "Doomscrolling"

Edit: I read your comment [2] in another thread about the privacy policy, and that is a good point. I sent an email to mozilla asking for clarification and if I get a reply I will add it here.

1: https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27633918

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#146

Post by errantmind »

Nicksil wrote: post #142
errantmind wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact they have significantly more than 250 employees in the first place is a bit mind boggling. As far as I can tell most of the spending is unrelated to Firefox. What do all of these people do and why are they needed?

>The fact they have significantly more than 250 employees in the first place is a bit mind boggling. As far as I can tell most of the spending is unrelated to Firefox. What do all of these people do and why are they needed? I sometimes have the same reaction when learning the number of people employed for what I would have otherwise thought to be some meager thing. Then I get reminded about the folks over in external…

I understand there are a lot of roles needed for non-trivial organizations to function, but Mozilla has over 1000 employees and, in my opinion, does not deliver a corresponding level of value. I would actually donate if I could be sure my money is going to Firefox. I do not care about any of their other initiatives.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#147

Post by lykahb »

I think that it is important to create a precedent of mass data collection that reveals to the users what is collected and gives tools to manage it. The legislators can use it as a blueprint to require a similar level of disclosure from other companies that do online surveillance. However, I do not see what value Rally offers to the enrolled users.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#148

Post by kortilla »

jonathanmayer wrote: post #24
thombles wrote: post #7

Whoever wrote this piece is way too close to... whatever it is Mozilla is doing here. There seems to be an assumption that users will be gleeful to throw their data at legitimate researchers from legitimate institutions doing legitimate work. What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else? Why? What's in it for them? Since when was giving our data to third parties a good idea? There is literally no motivatio…

Princeton research collaborator here. Glad to answer questions about Rally. > What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else? That depends on the Rally study, since research questions differ and studies are required to practice data minimization. Each study is opt in, with both short-form and long-form explanations. Academic studies also involve IRB-approved informed consent. Take a look at our launch study…

> The motivation is enabling crowdsourced scientific research that benefits society.

Oh, well since it “benefits society”...

Tell me, how is it that you filter for the research that benefits society vs the research that doesn’t?

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#149

Post by kortilla »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #100
elliekelly wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off. I'm one of the nerds who actually reads the privacy documents and Rally's privacy policy[1] has a section titled "How We Use Your Information" that includes: > improving Mozilla’s existing products and services > creating and developing new products All of the ma…

> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.

> you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered

Don’t do that here. The comment is about Rally pretending to be about altruistic academic research while actually being a platform for Mozilla product development.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#150

Post by xpe »

Nicksil wrote: post #131
elliekelly wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been interneting-while-woman for three decades now so of course my username isn't my real name. But (like most developers) my GitHub includes my real name, my photo, and my company, hence my hesitation. I have to wonder, though... are you as quick to chastise the "internet assholes" you see harassing women online as you were to chastise me for having the audacity to admit my gender online?

That wasn't chastising you. I don't know you so there was no way I could have known how long you've been on the internet nor your depth in experience in identity within it. I was attempting to point out some of the bigger factors feeding into your complaint, regarding the potential of people harassing you, with the intent of no more than to bring attention to something you may have overlooked, as humans tend to do so…

I see both sides here. On the whole, I think both people are trying to contribute and help in their own ways.

Some more specific comments:

> You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.

Saying "no reason" doesn't ring true to me. What one person considers to be (valid) reasons is subjective. In my view, 'reasons' includes a person's identity and experiences.

With that in mind, how do you think this alternative message would have been received... ?

"It was not my intention to chastise you. I meant well in offering some ways to reduce the chances that trolls come after you. Please don't assume malice. I'm happy to listen if you have suggestions on how I could communicate the message more effectively."

Post reply on HN