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

Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 450 posts

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#441

Post by keithpeter »

im3w1l wrote: post #415
kannanvijayan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm assuming there will always be an opt out which I shall add to my list of things I have to do when installing Firefox. There will be. Sorry for the hassle :(

How can I recommend my friends to use Firefox when I know they wont remember to opt out?

On Linux it may be that the various distributions decide to repackage Firefox with the default setting flipped. Not sure about the various policies on that one.

The ESR track presumably will have the default flipped because corporations get funny about data transfers to remote servers - mind you Microsoft seem to be getting away with it for business who don't have a full on Enterprise set up.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#442

Post by falcolas »

comex wrote: post #402
falcolas wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure that the idea is to report back random (existing) domains, yes. Here's a concern that comes up from that implementation option: any outliers from the set of existing domains (which would likely simply be implemented as a list of strings) would immediately be able to be called out as a "True" value, while a single reporting of a domain could reliably called out as a "False" value. Unless, of course,…

RAPPOR uses a Bloom filter. It doesn't report the domain itself; it reports (a corrupted version of) a handful of bits of a hash of the domain.

Good info, thanks!

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#443

Post by mirimir »

marumari wrote: post #439
mirimir wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can they not know that I'm visiting it? I mean, the data is coming from my IP address. Sure, they may be dropping that data before storage. But what if it's intercepted?

Connections to the Mozilla Telemetry server are done over HTTPS, so all an interceptor would know is that you are sending Telemetry and not what that Telemetry is.

OK, fair enough. Then an adversary inside Mozilla that can intercept the data. I mean, the NSA is inside Mozilla, right? It'd be foolish, in my opinion, to assume that they're not. Such a juicy target, and all.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#444

Post by dang »

kuschku wrote: post #432
dang wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you continue to post uncivil comments to HN we are going to ban you. You've had many more warnings than usual. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What is uncivil in this comment? I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything problematic in there, and I’d say the same to anyone’s face IRL, given the same circumstances. There is a swearword used, but it’s not in the context in any way uncivil, as the plural "you" that it is referring to is an abstract person, a hypothetical entity – not any actually involved person. (In this case, the potential future group of people at M…

Profanity isn't an issue on HN but "you don’t give a flying fuck about me, and only want your own benefit" is not, to my ear, the sort of thing one says to an abstract entity.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#445

Post by NabenHarb »

cgio wrote: post #399
Sir_Substance wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differential privacy is I have to trust the person aggregating the data to actually do it.

Do you? Excuse my ignorance, but I thought there was a way to locally mangle the data before submitting. Is that not what apple is doing?

For the case of RAPPOR (and for what Apple is doing), you do not need to trust the aggregator with your data. These algorithms operate in the "local" model of differential privacy, where all privatization occurs on the users' local machines before being sent to the aggregator.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#446

Post by kuschku »

dang wrote: post #444
kuschku wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is uncivil in this comment? I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything problematic in there, and I’d say the same to anyone’s face IRL, given the same circumstances. There is a swearword used, but it’s not in the context in any way uncivil, as the plural "you" that it is referring to is an abstract person, a hypothetical entity – not any actually involved person. (In this case, the potential future group of people at M…

Profanity isn't an issue on HN but "you don’t give a flying fuck about me, and only want your own benefit" is not, to my ear, the sort of thing one says to an abstract entity.

Have you also read the "and choosing opt-out" before that?

The topic is a choice that Mozilla plans to make, and is questioning users, and more about.

The decision has not been made.

My argument is that, if Mozilla (and whatever users Mozilla asks to give an opinion), choose to override the current decisions of users who do not want telemetry, and require a new hidden opt-out, then that would be proof that they (as group) don’t really care about the users choices.

The user I was talking to has no power in making that choice, nor do I. Nor is all of Mozilla making that choice.

I was using "you" with the meaning of the German word "man", (I’m natively German): one; you; they; people (indefinite pronoun; construed as a third-person singular).

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#447

Post by dang »

kuschku wrote: post #446
dang wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profanity isn't an issue on HN but "you don’t give a flying fuck about me, and only want your own benefit" is not, to my ear, the sort of thing one says to an abstract entity.

Have you also read the "and choosing opt-out" before that? The topic is a choice that Mozilla plans to make, and is questioning users, and more about. The decision has not been made. My argument is that, if Mozilla (and whatever users Mozilla asks to give an opinion), choose to override the current decisions of users who do not want telemetry, and require a new hidden opt-out, then that would be proof that they (as g…

Ok, probably a linguistic misunderstanding in this case. But you've straddled the civility/incivility line so often in your comments here that I still wish you would take a few more steps in the right (for HN) direction. I bet translation issues would cease to be a problem if you did.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#448

Post by jlgaddis »

yoasif_ wrote: post #406
noir_lord wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No compromise, I switched to FF on Android to avoid this crap from Chrome and now you'll do it as well. I look forwards to the fork.

They already said that anything they would do would have an opt-out available.

Regardless, opt-in should not be the default.

They say they have to default to opt-in because otherwise users will not enable this type of data collection. That, in my opinion, should be the #1 indicator that users DO NOT want this collection happening in the first place. They default to opt-in because they know most people won't opt-out, either because they forget, aren't aware that it is happening, or various other reasons.

I'm okay with them collecting any data they want to so long as it is opt-in (because I never will). Mozilla is slowly eroding their original, core values.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#449

Post by tunap »

grzm wrote: post #333
tunap wrote: post #331

Hey Dang, HN mods! With the 300+ upvotes and active discussion still occurring at hour 7 since posting, care to explain how the algorithm has relegated this discussion to the fourth page and is still dropping? Is the much less active, day old posting of a SF author's death more heavily weighted than an inconvenient topic that is important to several more factors of readers?

You can search HN for other comments from the mods regarding the algorithm, but the short answer is that ranking is not a simple, transparent algorithm, nor is it independent of mod input. Ranking is dependent on time, commenting rate, user upvotes and flags (which don't result in a '[flagged]' tag until a threshold is reached), as well as mod input. Too much commenting activity can trigger the "overheated discussion…

Thanks for response, grzm. Considering neither of Mozilla's recent gaffe postings appear in the 400+ 'recent' list today, I will forgo contributions to the site. Open info != cloistered nor censored. YC has interests to protect after all the market speak and spurious posturing is washed away. I will miss the less controversial content, but my clicks & data history seem to be my only vote that matters anymore.

Re: Studying how Firefox can collect additional data in a privacy-preserving way

#450

Post by kasabali »

sp332 wrote: post #164
syshum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This is a difficult compromise to make, Sorry I do not accept this compromise. Mozilla seems to have lost its way of late. Sad to see a company that was at the fore front of Privacy, and Security abandon that in name of market share and performance. I would rather sacrifice performance for privacy, not the other way around. From EME, to the adoption of Browser Extensions as the only customization option, now this..…

I guess this is offtopic, but what do browser extensions have to do with openness, security, or privacy?

In Google Analytics issue last month, "legacy" uBlock could block the connection while webextension version couldn't. It can't because it is not allowed to (openness), as a result your privacy is compromised.
Post reply on HN