No Surprises (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#31

Post by megalodon » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #27

megalodon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? If any search engine should be the default, at least pick the best or the most privacy friendly. Yahoo is neither. On top of that it is just a relay to Microsoft Bing. How hard is it to just ask the user which search engine they would like to use on install?

That's the wrong question. The right question is how much Yahoo paid mozilla to do this. At a guess, a lot less than the $145M that mozilla got in the past from Google.

And here I thought Mozilla was driven by the community. I guess there is a price tag on everything these days.

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#32

Post by mrweasel » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #25

mrweasel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but I would like to know that my non-Google browser contacts Googles server every now and then. If the goal is "no surprises", then users should be made aware of this feature and allowed to opt-in or out easily.

It's pretty benign. I'm not sure "warning you about potential phishing sites" is the sort of surprise they were trying to move away from. Would you consider being warned of a revoked SSL certificate a surprise too?

>Would you consider being warned of a revoked SSL certificate a surprise too?

I suppose not, but it's not the feature I find surprising, it's that it's a Google service in a browser I picked because it's not a Google product. Yeah, I know, the SSL revoking is a service provided by each of the certificate providers, so it's sort of the same thing.

Google search is in Firefox as well, but it's not surprising, it's kinda obvious really. They could do so similar with the anti-phishing/malware thing. On the phising site warning just write "This is a Google provided service, click to opt-out".

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#33

Post by eterm » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #8

bananaoomarang wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably more thinking of Mozilla replacing default search with Yahoo, without asking the user.

It's stuff like this that has an indirect effect that is much more serious than the change itself. Not all that long ago there was a thread here about 'why those bloody end users don't keep their systems up-to-date'. Well, there you have it: because they never just get the fixes, they also get all kinds of other junk rammed down their throats, if such an upgrade does not break their systems entirely. And so the end-u…

Your browser updates anyway, the "click to restart to get the new version" just initiates a restart. You'll get the new version next time you close and re-open anyway.

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#34

Post by k-mcgrady » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #22

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #4

Does this mean they'll be rolling back the Pocket integration?

This policy has zero to do with Pocket if you actually read it. It's about changing the user's search engine and homepage. Unless of course you wanted to get in a completely unrelated jab at Pocket again because reasons. Get over Pocket. There's no closed source code included. The open source code that integrates with Pocket is never executed due to lazy loading if you don't specifically use Pocket. No money changed…

>> "No money changed hands."

Money changing hands would have been better. That would've been a valid reason.

>> "best in breed provider of the service"

Or providers could have just created extensions. Now that Mozilla picked a winner competition suffers.

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#35

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #22

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #4

Does this mean they'll be rolling back the Pocket integration?

This policy has zero to do with Pocket if you actually read it. It's about changing the user's search engine and homepage. Unless of course you wanted to get in a completely unrelated jab at Pocket again because reasons. Get over Pocket. There's no closed source code included. The open source code that integrates with Pocket is never executed due to lazy loading if you don't specifically use Pocket. No money changed…

[deleted]

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#36

Post by stefanix » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #26

I consider the way they hid the "block third party cookies" option a surprise. Mozilla is so dependent on Google and other companies' money, they can't be completely trusted to offer the best privacy out of the box. The fact that Safari has 3rd party cookies disabled by default whereas Firefox hasn't... is both telling and sad.

Just checked, got totally surprised. Firefox basically overwrote my previous setting on third-party cookies. As you said the new checkbox is very much hidden: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-third-party-coo...

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#37

Post by l1n » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

Might be better to change the link to the official policy: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#38

Post by glass- » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #4

Does this mean they'll be rolling back the Pocket integration?

This policy was created in 2009 in response to the controversy when NoScript started messing around with ABP and broke functionality so that ads would display on the NoScript developer's website.

https://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2009/05/01/no-surprises/

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#39

Post by callahad » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #27

megalodon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? If any search engine should be the default, at least pick the best or the most privacy friendly. Yahoo is neither. On top of that it is just a relay to Microsoft Bing. How hard is it to just ask the user which search engine they would like to use on install?

That's the wrong question. The right question is how much Yahoo paid mozilla to do this. At a guess, a lot less than the $145M that mozilla got in the past from Google.

We had multiple offers on the table, all of which had improved finances compared to the previous contract. Yahoo's offer was focused on the US, which allowed us to partner with Yandex and Baidu in other regions of the world.

All else being the same, I don't see how supporting a global search monoculture controlled by a direct competitor would have been in the best interests of the Web or of Mozilla.

Re: No Surprises (2009)

#40

Post by criley2 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

Does "No Surprises" mean I won't find unwanted Firefox extensions pre-installed by Mozilla that are impossible to remove and only serve to reduce privacy by opening up new unwanted avenues to access my input and broadcast it over third party non-mozilla private networks? Shouldn't I at least be able to opt-out of a private video service running on a third party server that I have no terms of use or privacy policy covering?

"All changes must be ‘opt-in’, meaning the user must take non-default action to enact the change."

Right, just like I "opt-ed" in to Firefox Hello.

I can't even "opt out" of Firefox Hello!

"Uninstalling the add-on restores the user’s original settings if they were changed.

I wish. Just goes to show that they're pushing an uneven playing field where Firefox Extensions are auto-installed, can't be removed, and can break all the rules. But hey, at least everyone ELSE can't break all the rules.

Funny that they won't even apply this philosophy to their own products and services that they are forcing into user installations without an opt-in or opt-out.