Gregory's ServerNow to be clear, the disclosure Chrome provides to users is not *adequate*. Their wording of the "Ad Privacy" feature popup is highly disingenuous and the process to disable once notification is given is too complex and must be performed on a per-profile basis. But at least they *do it*, and to my knowledge don't track/send the data until the popup is displayed. Whereas Firefox just snuck this in in a software update, checked by default and you're probably learning about it now, on social media.
|
213 comments
 - The language Google/Firefox use to describe their ad snitching policies just makes my blood boil, an insult on top of the injury of the features themselves. Google uses the label "Ad Privacy" for a feature group that strictly decreases privacy over doing nothing. Firefox calls it "Privacy-preserving ad measurement". You know what would preserve my privacy more? *Not measuring*. I understand why Google is lying to me to protect their own business, but Firefox is supposed to be a nonprofit. WTF. - Firefox's "Privacy-preserving" ad tracking has other interesting issues. In another way the new ad snitching is worse than the old tracker cookies, Firefox doesn't *tell* you what data it's collected or reported, and unlike with cookies doesn't give you the ability to delete recorded "impressions". Also interestingly, the feature is not available to *all* advertisers currently, only a "small number" of partner sites. *Firefox doesn't disclose who they are*, again making this worse than $GOOG. Anyway, I guess that's a lot of typing. The TLDR is: - There is now a feature labeled "Privacy-preserving ad measurement" near the bottom of your Firefox Privacy settings. I recommend turning it off, or switching to a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome. - I have filed two bugs on Firefox about this, which I am choosing not to link to dissuade brigading. If I have not been banned from the bug tracker by next week I will file another bug about the ChatGPT integration in nightly @mcc maybe i just need to give up on not be a product, but to concentrate on how to be a terrible product.  @Bigshellevent @mcc I can’t find it now but there was a user program that generated garbage data to mask your movements. I think it was called Noize, Noisr, or something @mcc Yes, LibreWolf has everything needed to play DRM media included, it's just disabled by default. You enable it in "Settings -> General" just like in Firefox @KDHofAvalon thanks. Can this module be integrated in a case where I compiled my own copy of LibreWolf? @mcc That, I don't know. I haven't had a need to compile it myself yet in my testing. LibreWolf is just a fork of Firefox though, so it it works there it should also work for LibreWolf  @mcc @bob One of the most fundamental aspects of privacy is autonomy — being able to choose how much you share, with whom, and how. Contrary to how most privacy-conscious software projects tend to see it, that isn't always "no information shared ever." I wish it was easier to tune and express autonomy instead of either just locking everything to zero or letting ad-tech run my life.   @mcc "a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome" is such a cursed phrase 🤢 We really need a new browser from someone that isn't in thrall to adtech, AI bullshit, or fascist politics  @mcc Wow. If the direct comparison leads to sentences like "or switching to a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome", things must be REALLY off. (Yeah, they are.) So, which browser is still a good approach?! I'm so tired of all the enshittification! And of ChatGPT and all the other LLM stuff! 😤😒 @mcc @jesterchen LibreWolf is decent. Firefox is more polished, but LibreWolf definitely has the privacy defaults ert to max to the point where I loosened settings to allow for a better login experience. Definitely worth a try if FF is getting bad.  @mcc I wouldn't really say "witching to a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome." Chrome/Chromium has done stuff like this before multiple times and a number of other privacy violations as well. They did this one thing better (ish), but I would absolutely not under any circumstances call them "privacy-conscious" or implying switching to them would be better. @nazokiyoubinbou It is possible part of my goal with that post was to make an unusual statement so as to underline the extremity of the current situation. @mcc Well, you have to be careful with that sort of thing. It is very easy for people to take it literally. I admit I have a problem with that in general, taking stuff literally that everyone else finds very obviously not literal (Asperger's thing I guess,) but I think a lot of people also defer to such statements when it comes to complex things (especially tech.)  @mcc for completeness' sake, i found a Reddit thread where ppl raised an issue about that 'feature' - https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1dv59fd/dear_firefox_please_stop_adding_dubious_settings/  @mcc Google Chrome, or even degoogled Chromium, is NOT "a more privacy-conscious browser". It's 1000x worse. Yes this is (yet another) betrayal by Mozilla management clowns, but in browsers like in politics, "X betrayed us" doesn't justify "so we should turn to Y who was 1000x worse to begin with".  @jplebreton I am hoping it is an error. The other possibility is that it is not an error, but an intentional part of a plan to transform Firefox into a ChatGPT-like corporation that gets some of the benefits of being a nonprofit while operating for profit. ( See also: https://mastodon.social/@jwz/112650295543215212 )  @mcc the Mozilla foundation is a nonprofit. the Mozilla Corporation owned by them is not, that way they can circumvent the strict rules on nonprofits. Mozilla make hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, their management get huge salaries. nonprofit doesn't mean much aside from their tax status. certainly doesn't mean they act in the public interest.  @glyph It is my opinion that whatever counter-argument you are about to offer is one I have probably already considered and discarded in my own head. However, if you'd like to post your opinion for purposes of starting a discussion thread with *other people*, go ahead, I just probably won't engage. @nicholas_saunders @glyph I mean, on most topics I am actively curious to hear other people's perspectives, but this is a topic I have been personally doing an unusual amount of research on over the last two years so… maybe less so this time? >_> |
Other, loose angles to consider this from:
- Google/Firefox claim their tracking features are not "tracking" because they use something called "differential privacy". I don't have room to explain this class of technology, but I sincerely consider it to be fake. Without getting into the details, they provide *less* information to the advertisers than a cookie would have. But I'd prefer they provide none. Steps are taken to anonymize the data, but what is anonymized can often be de-anonymized.