|
Top-level
@narinarinari Except it was announced - two years ago, even on the mainline Mozilla blog (you just didn't care enough to interact with it). And except it is privacy-preserving (if you disagree, then please, publish an article showing how DAP can be reversed or somehow de-anonymized!) If we wanted to hide it, we'd have hundreds of different ways to do that. None of which would include "adding a visible toggle to the settings", and "add it to the release notes". 44 comments
Dude, I'm already trying to figure out how to move away from Firefox entirely, so I don't really care anymore. Mozilla's been in a death spiral for years, and if this isn't the thing that finally kills people's trust, it'll be the next unwanted, un-asked for, only helps advertisers, opt-in-by-default nonsense y'all jam in there next. All I want is a browser that doesn't sell me to the highest bidder, but apparently that's too much to ask. That's a whole other clusterfuck, but yeah, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there are no good privacy-focused browsers left. There are some new browser projects in the works (I think one is called Ladybird?) but who knows what will come of them, or whether they'll also sell out their users for cash. This Internet shit has become a real bummer.  The wording of your reply implied it's not "opt-out" and that the person asking about it was wrong. Yet it's easily verified it is enabled as soon as Firefox updates itself to version 128, with no user action required. I just verified that myself on one of the computers where I'm not running ESR. If you meant "opt-out is fine, it doesn't bother me", then I think far from dismissing it, you've confirmed that Mozilla's entrenching on this issue and it's serious. “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” @narinarinari I don't know what more you expect besides public GitHub repos, public bugs, a blog post on the main Mozilla blog (not even a sub-blog or a niche-audience blog like hacks.mozilla.org), and a release note. Maybe a flyer delivered into your postbox? Who knows. Anyway, sorry we're not able to beam information directly into your brain. You do realize that just knowing what a Github repo is, or where Mozilla's official blog is, puts you and I in a group consisting of 0.000000001% of the userbase for most software, right? The only place most people will see anything like this is if -- if -- the company is kind enough to notify them *when they open the app*. Otherwise, it's absolutely invisible. And you all aren't dumb. You know this. Which is why you opted everyone in, and didn't put it on the upgrade splash screen. @narinarinari Every time we put anything in front of the user after any updates, y'all on social media go full rage mode, too. No matter how we handle this, there's always a large group of people yelling at us. Bobby explained in his Reddit post why we decided to make this opt-out. If you disagree with that, that's your good right. I can't convince you otherwise, and if you want to act like this is a big conspiracy, so be it. Nothing we could say will change that. @denschub If you don’t want users to be upset at your choices, maybe don’t make choices that harm them? What’s more, there’s a pattern here. Mozilla only continues to exist because Google, the world’s largest ad company, keeps it alive. Mozilla has also recently purchased an ad company, so is actively part of that toxic market. And you partnered with Meta of all untrustworthy, data hungry ad companies on this nega-feature. Gee, I wonder why people are upset.  @denschub @narinarinari @denschub @narinarinari “No matter how we handle this, there's always a large group of people yelling at us.” you’re so close @narinarinari @denschub If you can put sponsored links on my home page you can notify me that you're collecting PPA ad dara Ah yes, let's #gaslight the #Firefox userbase because we don't want to admit that #Google asked us to make this update and we are doing it because we get 80% of our revenues from Google. And Google asked us to do this because #Chrome is doing the same thing and #browser users cannot be allowed to have a real choice to not participate in the advertising ecosystem. Can we say #Cartel at this point?  It's software Software that *frequently* displays notices for new features and stuff I don't think it takes a Ph.D and twenty years experience to put these things together and figure out a way to notify people that is both obvious and universal  @denschub @narinarinari It's not as if Firefox hasn't put up info panels about other things that happen in the browser, so this is somewhat disingenuous. FWIW, I believe intentions are good here, but when Chrome devs rolled out their new anonymized tracking tech, they made a big visual fuzz about it AND explained in layman's terms what was going on (even if it could have benefited from a link for techie users). Sorry, but Mozilla completely dropped the ball on this and unnecessarily eroded user base trust further.  @denschub @narinarinari I don't install my copy of Firefox through a blog. My copy of Firefox is silently updated in the background by my operating system. I allow this because I assume that Firefox updates will often contain critical security fixes, but will never contain nasty surprises such as backdoors for advertisers which passes them information about the things I see while browsing. I shouldn't *have* to "care" what's happening on the Firefox blog to prevent my privacy being violated. @mcc I will be honest, I have a bit of a hard time interacting with you after your earlier post announcing that you consider differential privacy "fake". I have no problems admitting that I don't fully understand everything that goes into it - but I'm also not a privacy expert. I do know, however, that the folks working on this are very skilled, and I also know that there has been no documented method of de-anonymizing data. @mcc If you could demonstrate that this is actually a "fake" privacy technology, I'm 100% confident our folks will make adjustments to that immediately, or cancel it outright. But without some actual facts to argue about, this all seems a bit like we're yelling at each other, which I'm not a huge fan of. @denschub Tracking by ad corporations in the modern era is done by aggregating data from various sources— fingerprinting, cookies where available, data purchased from brokers. In many cases, the information is limited or ambiguous. Firefox's ad measurement is one additional piece of information they can add to the pile. Firefox applies "Differential privacy" to make it more ambiguous. But they're already investing in using statistical methods to de-ambiguate and de-anonymize data. @denschub It doesn't matter if I can, at this moment, find a deanonymization attack on Firefox PPA. It matters if marketing firms or nation-states can find one. If they do find one, they won't be sending you a nice email telling you about it. Given all this I feel "privacy-preserving" is a deeply dishonest descriptor, and differential privacy—made of advanced math, something most consumers are not good at—creates in the consumers' mind a perception of certainty that you cannot actually provide. @mcc @denschub calling something "privacy-preserving" because it prevents individual re-identification is misleading, because most privacy issues are group level and most privacy harms are perpetrated by classifying someone as a member of a group DP is great for browser telemetry when you want to know that someone's browser crashed doing some specific thing but you actively don't want to know who it was—but it's not a good fit when the recipient of the message has a motivation to discriminate  @mcc @denschub the ‘yet more’ is what gets me. this whole thing seems to rely on some pie-in-the-sky belief that ad tech is going to stop doing all the invasive shit they’re doing now in favor of this opaque, trust-us-it’s-not-invasive-despite-the-invasive-launch ‘feature.’ with no reason to believe this is true, ff can only be adding to their data stash. and yes, dennis, i’ve read your opinions on these points here & on reddit. they have only further eroded my trust in mozilla. it’s damning.  @brhfl @mcc @denschub we want to be clear, we were a party to the early strategy discussions on this stuff in our time at Google (yes, that was five years ago; yes, it's taken quite a while to gain the traction the company wanted) and it's a desperate play BY the ad industry. the public should not go along with it. This is a #FalseDichotomy intended to #gaslight the users. There is always the choice of simply not including any #adtech at all in #Firefox, which would be the highest level of #PrivacyProtection, but of course you are ignoring that option.  @mcc @denschub @narinarinari i'm done with google and firefox any decent browser recommendations?  @denschub @narinarinari I'm a huge advocate for Firefox, follow Firefox news and read the blog, and if I read what you're referring to 2 years ago, I promptly forgot it. So here's me, exasperated, following multiple Firefox devs, hoping for future communication from the Foundation to be much more transparent. Even if it was abject nonsense, Google still flashed up an explanation and choice for the new privacy sandbox. But the plans were on display…” @zens wow, such a unique and never before done quote! https://mastodon.social/@narinarinari/112792362678193522  @zens @denschub yeah, “our surveillance capitalism is cryptographically secure” is one hell of a take that the spyware division at the raspberry pi foundation would get behind. so at a certain point “open” doesn’t necessarily mean “good intentions”, which is what both the mozilla and raspberry pi communities expected from each and were let down by each. @denschub @narinarinari there’s no such thing as a privacy preserving privacy violation. that’s a contradiction. and all so called “anonymising” technologies are as fake as carbon capture tech, and offset credits Read the #Firefox CTO's reddit note. The words that come to mind: "#mealymouthed" and "#gaslighting the userbase". Adding ways to track user behavior, anonymous or not, is the opposite of privacy protection. Pleading that this way gives an outlet for advertising "safely" is gaslighting. FF didn't have to do this. & opt-out? That's just #Evil. But we get it, the masters of #Mozilla are the main funders - Google, not Firefox users. At least have the courage to own it.  @denschub are you high? nobody reads their fucking internet browser’s blog  Dude, You have to live in an especially high ivory tower to assume that everyone of your users is going to follow your blogs. Using that as a way to foster the blame for your misguided policy of using an opt-out instead of an opt-in for an extremely privacy invasive and corrosive feature is rich. Especially so, coming from a company that states that it „cares about privacy“ right on their front page, and states that this is why we should use their product. |
Gregory's Server
@narinarinari And I'm just gonna ignore your "opt-in by default" argument, as that has been addressed multiple times now. If you wanna disagree with that, fine, that's your opinion, but I don't see a need to repeat what's been said way too many times already.