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

Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 295 posts

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#121

Post by anonymousab »

h91wka wrote: post #105

It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count 1) parameters that include word "telemetry" 2) everything that looks like a unique token 3) "mozilla.org" URLs you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving onl…

Well, don't worry. I'm confident they'll fix this eventually. You can't be concerned about the tracking bits you see in about:config if you can't open about:config to begin with.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#122

Post by blackearl »

avian wrote: post #35
throwaway8291 wrote: post #3

I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login (at around version 40). Never looked back. One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they…

> I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login It's funny because Firefox has been pushing their login thing pretty hard (the yellow "oh no" exclamation mark icon if you're not logged in, the account icon that keeps placing itself back onto my toolbar, occasional full-page ad/nag screen, ...).

I've never seen the exclamation mark and I'm never signed in on my work computer. Meanwhile, Chrome signs you into the browser profile if you sign into any Google site and it's opt-out.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#123

Post by giancarlostoro »

waitwhatwhoa wrote: post #112
cousin_it wrote: post #94

1) Thirteen banner ads, most of them animated 2) Tracking from Google and Facebook 3) Cookie warning with no way to opt out 4) You can only opt out if you live in California: > Opting out of the sharing of your personal information by Protocol with marketers: Please send an email to privacy@protocol.com with the following information: -Name -Email -Confirmation of California residency

There are a few news organizations somehow battling it out to survive without advertising and I applaud them, but most comments like these simply remind me of this sentiment: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

The issue is that this is a continuing issue that will possibly only get worse until websites find a better means of funding themselves and their staff. I suspect we'll only see these sort of comments increase over time.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#124

Post by dralley »

h91wka wrote: post #105

It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count 1) parameters that include word "telemetry" 2) everything that looks like a unique token 3) "mozilla.org" URLs you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving onl…

That's kind of an absurd way to count, since many of the items listed can be disabled by global prefs while still being "enabled" themselves.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#125

Post by DrScientist »

simias wrote: post #96
DrScientist wrote: post #15

Ex-Mozillian Brendan Eich agrees that privacy is the battle for the future http://www.brave.com The question is - do you need to re-write the internet economy as Brave are trying to to achieve it, and not just block trackers? The third element is that governments are becoming addicted to the vast trove of information gathered - will they be willing to give that up if a technical/business model solution takes off. Int…

You make it sound as if Brave does more than Firefox to provide an alternative to the Chrome quasi-monopoly. Let's not forget that Brave is a fork of Chromium in the first place which means that if you value competition Firefox is still a better bet, at least until Brave shows that they can maintain a deep fork of Chrome long term while resisting upstream changes they don't want and that's a very tall order. I do agr…

Not saying Brave is the answer, but I think they have at least identified the right problem - ie

If, for example, an effective adblocking browser takes off, huge amounts of revenue to content providers will disappear. So content providers will start to resist in the only way they can - by blocking people with adblockers.

If you want to avoid either massive reduction of content, or the blocking of ad blockers, then you need to offer an alternative.

As I said, whether Brave's model is the right alternative is an open question - but at least they are having a go.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#126

Post by mark_l_watson »

move-on-by wrote: post #90
mark_l_watson wrote: post #30

I liked the wrap up where the position is that it is OK when other browsers adopt some of Mozilla’s privacy features. I just about exclusively use FireFox with nine containers on my Linux and macOS laptops. Being able to segregate data is a game changer. On my iOS devices, I feel stuck with Safari since other browsers sit on top of Safari. I appreciate the privacy features in Safari but still feel the need to frequen…

Private tabs are the only way I use Safari. I found that I rarely use websites that I need to be logged in to, as those type of services generally have an App that I'm already using. For the odd case where I need to login, with my password vault, its only a couple extra clicks.

+1 that is excellent advice.

When non-tech friends ask how much of a hassle it is deleting all cookies, I point out that the passwords are saved and reliving in is quick.

All private tabs is obviously better, and I will do that more often.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#127

Post by jfk13 »

h91wka wrote: post #105

It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count 1) parameters that include word "telemetry" 2) everything that looks like a unique token 3) "mozilla.org" URLs you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving onl…

telemetry ≠ tracking

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#128

Post by h91wka »

dralley wrote: post #124
h91wka wrote: post #105

It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count 1) parameters that include word "telemetry" 2) everything that looks like a unique token 3) "mozilla.org" URLs you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving onl…

That's kind of an absurd way to count, since many of the items listed can be disabled by global prefs while still being "enabled" themselves.

Does concept of "estimation" ring a bell to you?

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#129

Post by ecmascript »

Angostura wrote: post #114
ecmascript wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because you're a CEO you can't believe whatever you want in your spare time? Or does the same rules apply for everyone that works at Mozilla? If so, how the fuck does anyone know what is a fireable opinion? It's not like he used company resources to promote his beliefs or enforced his beliefs on others. What Mozilla did to Brendan is essentially to enforce thought crime on their own staff. It's kind of hard to tak…

> So because you're a CEO you can't believe whatever you want in your spare time? Clearly, if you a CEO and publicly supporting causes, your support for those causes will have an impact on the reputation of the organisation. Now, I sure you can think of examples of more extreme spare-time beliefs that you might think were incompatible with being CEO, so its a question of where you particularly draw the line. (Or perh…

> Now Mozilla has, whether you like it or not decided to build its brand values and ethos around equality and inclusivity

Yes I know, this is why I use Brave and why Mozilla is not relevant anymore. At my company we don't really make a lot of effort to test that our product works in Firefox anymore because they have such a low market share. I am basically the only one wanting to fully support firefox, testing every feature in it, but even I am having a hard time defending that position when Mozilla as a company is being so incredible short-sighted and pushes bullshit.

Their wokeness killed Firefox and I'm very upset about that. I hate the people who ruined Mozilla which was for the longest time the only sane option in the browser market.

I believe they will sooner or later discontinue Firefox unless something extraordinary happens because they won't have enough users to support it.

> If Brendan started donating to an organisation campaigning to give law enforcement and marketing companies access to your personal data, do you think it would be compatible with his position at Brave?

No I don't think so. But his beliefs in that theoretical case woule oppose what the product Brave is all about. Supporting same sex marriage or not has nothing to do with browsers, the internet or even technology.

It's just an unpolular opinion that get you fired for the same company that pretend they value privacy, freedom and integrity. Which to me is now just bullshit I do not believe. In fact there is even evidence to support it, they are sending data to google even when you start a private tab in firefox so evidently they give away data to the same tech giants they claim to oppose.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#130

Post by groovybits »

propogandist wrote: post #110
Anon1096 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand what anonymized means. Yes they know that someone went to those URLs... but they can't link it to a person. So it's anonymous.

The request originates and returns to an IP address, your IP address. It's not anonymous.

So does every other service on the internet, unless you're going out of your way to mask your IP addr. That in itself does not expose the sites you visit via SafeBrowsing.
Post reply on HN