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

Firefox Monitor

monitor.firefox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 227 posts

Re: Firefox Monitor

#91

Post by tomxor »

mffnbs wrote: post #69
tomxor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything needs to be a "big tech company", but you are right big tech companies are quite similar in this respect. At critical mass capitalism seems to cause companies to lose their driving principles that made them unique - their behaviour becomes more of a mindless ecology driven solely by money. Now look at Mozilla, it's a non profit, look at everything it does, they have never lost their principles. They wi…

> Now look at Mozilla, it's a non profit, look at everything it does, they have never lost their principles. I take issue with this. Mozilla has a corporate arm and they're the ones in control of Firefox marketing and development. Take for example the fact that they were (most likely) paid to install an extension to advertise a TV show. Apple has yet to display any ads to me on my Mac, unlike Microsoft in Windows. I…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation

> It owns a taxable subsidiary: the Mozilla Corporation [...] The subsidiary is 100% owned by the parent, and therefore follows the same non-profit principles

Re: Firefox Monitor

#92

Post by programbreeding »

_fqqr wrote: post #62
groovecoder wrote: post #36

Disclaimer: Firefox Monitor dev here. Note: We just released a "V2" of the site that allows you to add multiple email addresses to monitor, and (then) to have all your breach alerts sent to your single primary email address.

Are there plans to monitor an entire custom domain?

I would love this as well. I use website-im-on@mydomain.com for every login. Being able to monitor my entire custom domain would be great. I assume it would require some sort of DNS verification or something.

Re: Firefox Monitor

#93

Post by h1d »

bennylope wrote: post #72
sleavey wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to know who betrayed me. You can run your own email server (or have a company host a private domain for you), set up a catch-all address that only you know, then use a different email address for every site you sign up to. That way you can find out this sort of information. Using this technique, I know for example that spammers obtained the address I signed up to Stack Overflow with. The email is not shown o…

I do this with Fastmail, including specialized subdomains to help me segment the addresses and then distinct email names for each sign up as necessary. You can also do something similar with Gmail (and probably other providers) using "+" in your username, e.g. "myname+hackernews@gmail.com". This creates a unique email address that delivers to your Gmail account as if the "+ " were absent. This is more easily defeated…

Using + isn't the best method as some services just won't allow having + sign in the email address (probably shitty email address detection) and of course spammers can simply strip the alias parts and send you mail.

You'd have a better luck with *@user.your.domain if you can give each user a unique domain.

Re: Firefox Monitor

#94

Post by emn13 »

benatkin wrote: post #86
detritus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they focused on making it simple, fast, and reliable, it would have a much better shot at taking market share from Chrome. imho, they've already achieved this and have a great browser that's at least comparably-competent against Chrome. The battle Mozilla has with Firefox isn't in improving its tech specs, it's in winning over hearts and minds, and that's a complicated, somewhat costly game. (I say this as a lon…

There are only four major browsers, so it isn't about being a great browser . Many try to switch and then some scandal happens, or it just seems as cluttered as any other browser, and they give up. I think the people who think Firefox Monitor is a good idea are probably the ones who thought the Mr. Robot promo was a good idea. A good browser should stay out of the way. Chrome did for a long time. Having a "Save to Po…

Browsers have tons of feature; you don't need to use the ones you don't care for.

It's trivial to remove the pocket button - right-click and select "remove from address bar".

If I might ask - how is a "save to pocket" intrusive? This isn't like any of the billions of social media buttons you'll come across on the web; it's not a tracker or anything (and if you do click it, you're going to need to make an account first; and it's only going to save what you ask it explicitly to save).

Re: Firefox Monitor

#95

Post by m52go »

Looks like Mozilla is starting to break out again, and it seems they're making the most of it with recent headlines.

I say they should capitalize on it with the ultimate announcement. Bring back Firefox OS!

Re: Firefox Monitor

#96

Post by tuxone »

EasyTiger_ wrote: post #83

Apollo whom I've never had any dealings with whatsoever have compromised my details. Absolutely fucking outrageous.

Same here, I never heard of Apollo and I have 0 emails from them in my email account. Yet it looks like they leaked both email address and (and this sucks a lot) phone number.

Re: Firefox Monitor

#97

Post by a3n »

ccleve wrote: post #39

My email appears in six breaches. Only one of the companies I recognize. I have never done business with the other five. This pisses me off. Not that the data was stolen -- these things happen. It pisses me off that my data was shared with third parties without my knowledge or consent. And no, a paragraph buried in the basement of a privacy policy does not constitute informed consent. This system would be more useful…

> It pisses me off that my data was shared with third parties without my knowledge or consent

But you knew when you signed up to everywhere you've ever signed up that you were giving them uninformed consent to do whatever they want with your data and metadata, and you knew that they would do whatever they want, including not bothering to effectively protect your data.

And yet you signed up.

And so have I. But since this kind of thing has become front of mind the last few years, I sign up for very few to none services anymore. At signup, my first thought is "Is this service important enough to lose my money and identity for?" The answer is virtually always no.

If we stop signing up for stuff, stuff will improve or die. Both outcomes are equally good.

Re: Firefox Monitor

#98

Post by emn13 »

benatkin wrote: post #89
retSava wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is their focus. Not FF monitor, but privacy. Going up against/with Apple as a privacy-conscious alternative to Chrome etc. From that viewpoint, this is in line with that.

It's currently taking away from it being a good browser. When I go to a new site I get this atrocious animation: https://superuser.com/questions/1438488/disable-firefox-cont...

You may find your priorities as to what constitutes a good browser are not universal. Having a content blocker may be more important to many people than a tiny animation most people will barely notice. And... if you're not immediately used to a content blocker it's not a crazy idea to have something that actively draws a tiny bit of attention to the fact that something altered the page you saw, because content blockers do sometimes break pages, and thus users need to be able to find a way to disable it, certainly while the feature is still fairly new.

I think it's fair to say that you're never going to find a set of features and UI that have universal appeal, but if the UI really distracts you even after the first few times (I honestly don't notice it anymore), you could suggest a feature that allows disabling the icon or at least turning off the animation. Sounds like a reasonable request to me at least...

Re: Firefox Monitor

#100

Post by jsilence »

criddell wrote: post #12

I checked my email address and it says my data was lost by verifications.io. I've never heard of that site before and going there didn't reveal any clues. I googled the name and found a report [1] on the breach. They lost control of records on 2 billion email addresses. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/03/10/2-billio...

What if the companies 'losing' data would be court ordered to pay a reasonable sum per lost record, lets say one Dollar, to a charity.
Post reply on HN