31–40 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like when they slipped a Mr. Robot plugin into the download without telling people? https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
I must be the only one who thought this was a non-issue. A molehill turned into a mountain.
This is a little vague on the technicals, but it sounds like you would be downloading and installing the full VPN service as if you had obtained it directly from ProtonVPN? i.e. this isn't a browser plugin? It'd be interesting if there were some tie-ins with the browser, like perhaps separate VPN connections per container (not sure this is possible, I'm no expert).
Mozilla's blog, so not a dupe of the other one, which is ProtonVPN's.
I haven't completely read it but I did spot one difference:
"These subscriptions will be billed directly by Mozilla and the majority of the revenue from these subscriptions will go to Mozilla, directly supporting Mozilla’s mission."
Mozilla was less clear about how it'd be distributed.
ProtonVPN is the same company as ProtonMail. The company has had a good rep, reminds me of Lavabit.
Having said that - seeing them vouched for by the Mozilla Foundation seems to be a significantly better indicator of their trustworthiness than this post from a day or two ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18260920 - I _mostly_ trust Mozilla to not be guided just by whoever offers them money, and hopefully to have learnt from their dumb Mr Robot fuckup...
(disclaimer I guess I own a company that offers VPN services, it's like ~1% of revenue though). I think this seems like a bit much. I'd love Firefox to double down on building a great browser, rather than getting into Pocket, VPN, a Phone, IOT, etc. Sure, a VPN can be really helpful when you're on sketchy open wifi, or other adversarial network conditions. But you're still trusting someone to handle your connections…
Some of us live in tinpot totalitarian reigemes[x] where ISPs are required by the government to retain "meta data" records of all customer connections and traffic.
It's a privacy win for me just to move the endpoint where my unencrypted traffic (and dns lookups) out of my local jurisdiction, since at least that way I'm not using a service that's required by law to snitch me out to any curious local cop... (Hopefully my chosen VPN provider really isn't keeping logs or snooping y traffic, but even if they are - moving that out of my local legal jurisdiction is an improvement for me...)
[x] That's a little intentionally overhyperboled - but fuck me our Australian politicians are making some insane laws around internet use by the whole population...
And let's not forget that this is also a jump into the abyss of in-browser ads that may be difficult to block even with an add-on. From the screenshots it seems that FF analyzes your behavior (connection to an unprotected network) and displays the ad based on that. I fear what's going to happen when Chrome team picks this idea (e.g. "we see that you are logging into a bank X, how about you try bank Y?")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must be the only one who thought this was a non-issue. A molehill turned into a mountain.
I bet you'd be screaming hell if chrome would have done it.
But keep in mind that while it was pushed out into people's browsers in a stupidly-lacking-in-foresight fashion, it still required use activation before it'd do anything...
I'm at least four nines sure Google have got worse privacy-eroding code in Chrome that does way worse things that flip some text upside down after you specifically activate an add-on...