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

Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 304 posts

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#61

Post by threeseed »

digitalzombie wrote: post #46
solarexplorer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Apple makes most money with hardware. Unlike Google who makes most money with ads. So at least in theory Apple can more easily invest in privacy. EDIT: Check their last quarter's results, Apple makes only 6% of their revenue with online services: https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy15datasum.pdf

There was a reddit post where OP works for a third party company that Apple send Siri voice to. People complained that users didn't read the EULA or whatever. Anyway OP said it was very specific too and crazy. So it doesn't sound like Apple being the champion of privacy.

This is the thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2wzmmr/everythin...

Apple is using third parties to help make Siri better not to make money.

And let's be clear we don't know the contract between Apple and these companies. Given Apple's track record it should have numerous privacy conditions.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#62

Post by MichaelGG »

kibwen wrote: post #38

It's interesting to think of this as a nuclear option for Firefox. The only incentive they have not to turn it on immediately is that it could poison relationships with site owners such that they stop testing their sites on Firefox or outright block Firefox users, but if Firefox market share ever diminished to the point where site owners were already neglecting Firefox then I see no reason why Mozilla wouldn't damn t…

Mozilla could also implement shims, to make sites continue to work. So if a site breaks because it makes a call to a tracking library but that's now throwing an error, just provide that same tracking library's functions, but obviously they won't do anything.

This would at least fix sites that aren't going out of their way to break things.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#63

Post by throwthrwo »

calhoun137 wrote: post #43
throwaway425 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a valid objection. GA at this point is on most websites you visit. The data is forwarded to Google where it's processed and stored forever. GA is one of the biggest threats to privacy on the web, and any company claiming to care about your privacy should not be using it.

I agree with you that it's a valid objection. I disagree however, when you say " any company claiming to care about your privacy should not be using it." That's an easy accusation to throw around, but what is hard to is come up with a better alternative. What is your suggestion, that they should abandon all analytics, or that they should build their own, or do you not have one? Are you willing to acknowledge that GA…

The solution is to use a tracking library. The library should be hosted on your own server, and should not phone home.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#64

Post by spydum »

higherpurpose wrote: post #18

> Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things like Superfish, infect 1 in 20 machines with ad injection malware, and create sites that require unsafe plugins and take twice as many resources to load, quite expensive in terms of bandwidth, power, and stability. That's a good point. Reminds me of "coal energy is che…

wait, what? How does custom tailored ads based on your usage patterns harm you? there is an awful lot of adtech hate because its easy to see how poorly implemented adtech can hinder performance, but i dont see how it is malicious in nature.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#65

Post by throwthrwo »

throwaway425 wrote: post #6
alexgrist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This again..

It's a valid objection. GA at this point is on most websites you visit. The data is forwarded to Google where it's processed and stored forever. GA is one of the biggest threats to privacy on the web, and any company claiming to care about your privacy should not be using it.

Another major one is Cloudflare. They mitm connections to many sites (with the sites' permission), meaning they cannot be blocked. HN is behind Cloudflare.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#66

Post by [deleted] »

nugget wrote: post #58

I'm surprised that Mozilla didn't enable this feature by default. They're either serious about differentiating themselves on the privacy front, or not. It's the every day users who need this protection, not the more advanced users who probably already use an adblock extension.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#67

Post by Menge »

jt2190 wrote: post #56
Menge wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I install any API from apple without providing Apple (and whoever else) with my credit card? The OsX machine at my office is mystifying, am I supposed to provide my personal credit card to apple to get security updates? That is more secure and insures more of my privacy than not entering my credit card into a system I don't trust? I view Apple as insulting my intelligence with promises of "convenience" that am…

"Create an iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store account without a credit card or other payment method" https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204034

Which leads to: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203905 " If you're using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time If you're using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None."

I've always end up back in UX loops wanting my credit card since I seem to need a new version that is free but in the app store to get security updates..

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#69

Post by Sanddancer »

nugget wrote: post #58

I'm surprised that Mozilla didn't enable this feature by default. They're either serious about differentiating themselves on the privacy front, or not. It's the every day users who need this protection, not the more advanced users who probably already use an adblock extension.

They're very cautiously dipping their toe in the water given the holy shitstorm that happened a couple years ago when they announced they were going to block third party cookies by default. I imagine that doing it this way means they can show metrics that blocking in this way doesn't meaningfully affect bottom lines.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#70

Post by dm2 »

jfoster wrote: post #60

Can anyone explain exactly what Firefox Tracking Protection does & doesn't do? The label "tracking protection" makes me think it might block analytics tools and retargeting/remarketing cookies, but this blog post seems to suggest that it might block advertising altogether.

Yes, it does block advertisements.

They just have a blacklist of sites that they block, it's not much more sophisticated than that from what I read. All of the localstorage, cookies, and other tracking across domains goes away if you filter requests like that. I'm sure they are doing more things, but they have to make sure it doesn't break a large number of sites, and if a site is broken it seems like an "all or nothing" allow/deny system, which is not ideal.

I use uMatrix and it defaults to blocking all 3rd party scripts unless they're globally trusted or have been trusted in the past. This creates lots of problems for many websites. Most new websites I visit I have to enable some 3rd party scripts, refresh, make sure there are not any critical javascript errors in the console, then I can properly use the site. Normal users cannot be expected to do this, they must have it work the first time or they will freak out.

Post reply on HN