From what I read before, it seems like they’re at least anonymizing data, but as soon as I read that they’re working with Meta to standardize the approach, I winced hard. You can opt out of it at least.
Don’t think it’s with Meta directly, but ex-meta folks now working as Anonym, which Mozilla recently acquired. I’ll check the announcement and docs again later, just in case I misread. I fully support criticizing dubious software and decisions, but I believe we need to do it properly, otherwise it’s just noise.
Edit: really sorry folks, I got things mixed up.
For the last few months we have been working with a team from Meta (formerly Facebook) source - mozilla blog
But searching this did lead me to find out this is done in partnership with the ISRG
Which is sponsored and partly led by the EFF—haven’t seen these folks miss horribly yet, though feel free to point out an example.
…I almost made a lengthy argument here, but it wouldn’t be directed at anyone in this thread. Bit tired. My point is, lots of folks whose work I respect (even if begrudgingly) involved in this. I want to give it serious consideration, not throw it away because “fake privacy feature.” If it works and is widely adopted, I can see the argument for how it’d be better—unfortunately, most people still browse the internet without uBlock.
Doesn’t mean I’ll stop installing uBlock on every device I can; I’m simply accepting that’ll never be every device on earth.
Mozilla is a little different too. They’ve been around for a long time and I get the vibe at least most of the folks there believe in something. They’re also are struggling to strike a balance between keeping the doors open, and not becoming a terrible monster like Google and Meta have become. I’ve been using their stuff for a long time.
Yeah, a hardline stance was never one of their core values. Every year I wonder, a little more unsure of my past ideals, if perhaps their balanced approach isn’t the more effective one in terms of actually getting things done and making the internet slightly better than it would’ve been otherwise.
I do wish we had more browsers, though. Shame about Ladybird.
The real solution is to never send that data at all. I don’t trust any company when they say they encrypt data, unless they have their approach reviewed by experts in the cryptographic field.
Is it encrypted at rest or only in transit?
What’s the encryption and the method?
Where is the data stored?
It’s like giving someone the keys to your house simply based on a promise they’ll never enter.
Microsoft recently debuted their Recall feature and it was immediately found to have a major flaw in the security of the storage method for the files. These companies have proven they’re careless at every turn.
There ya go. I don’t want to be opted in to sending ANYTHING to Mozilla, especially advertisement effectiveness detail. I’m certain that’s going to include non-anonymized data or it’s mostly useless, I can’t see what’s being sent, but it may not be secured. I get it, I’m not the majority, with ublock and a pi-hole there’s not much to even go on before I made the config change. I guess it’s about time to move away from core firefox branch… but that comes with it’s own concerns.
By definition, anonymized data can not be reversed. However, many people do not know that difference. If the data would really be anonymized, it would be fine from a data protection point of view.
I get your point, but also: Moz. acquired pocket and there’s still a flag to disable it. Almost every other privacy-affecting feature has either intuitive settings or about:config flags.
This feels like an unfounded, or at least overblown, fear.
Not that I appreciate pocket being integrated in the first place, but still.
From what I read before, it seems like they’re at least anonymizing data, but as soon as I read that they’re working with Meta to standardize the approach, I winced hard. You can opt out of it at least.
Don’t think it’s with Meta directly, but ex-meta folks now working as Anonym, which Mozilla recently acquired. I’ll check the announcement and docs again later, just in case I misread. I fully support criticizing dubious software and decisions, but I believe we need to do it properly, otherwise it’s just noise.
Edit: really sorry folks, I got things mixed up.
But searching this did lead me to find out this is done in partnership with the ISRG
Which is sponsored and partly led by the EFF—haven’t seen these folks miss horribly yet, though feel free to point out an example.
…I almost made a lengthy argument here, but it wouldn’t be directed at anyone in this thread. Bit tired. My point is, lots of folks whose work I respect (even if begrudgingly) involved in this. I want to give it serious consideration, not throw it away because “fake privacy feature.” If it works and is widely adopted, I can see the argument for how it’d be better—unfortunately, most people still browse the internet without uBlock.
Doesn’t mean I’ll stop installing uBlock on every device I can; I’m simply accepting that’ll never be every device on earth.
Mozilla is a little different too. They’ve been around for a long time and I get the vibe at least most of the folks there believe in something. They’re also are struggling to strike a balance between keeping the doors open, and not becoming a terrible monster like Google and Meta have become. I’ve been using their stuff for a long time.
Yeah, a hardline stance was never one of their core values. Every year I wonder, a little more unsure of my past ideals, if perhaps their balanced approach isn’t the more effective one in terms of actually getting things done and making the internet slightly better than it would’ve been otherwise.
I do wish we had more browsers, though. Shame about Ladybird.
Because “anonymized” data can never be reversed.
I mean the bullshit from these people…
The real solution is to never send that data at all. I don’t trust any company when they say they encrypt data, unless they have their approach reviewed by experts in the cryptographic field.
Is it encrypted at rest or only in transit? What’s the encryption and the method? Where is the data stored?
It’s like giving someone the keys to your house simply based on a promise they’ll never enter.
Microsoft recently debuted their Recall feature and it was immediately found to have a major flaw in the security of the storage method for the files. These companies have proven they’re careless at every turn.
There ya go. I don’t want to be opted in to sending ANYTHING to Mozilla, especially advertisement effectiveness detail. I’m certain that’s going to include non-anonymized data or it’s mostly useless, I can’t see what’s being sent, but it may not be secured. I get it, I’m not the majority, with ublock and a pi-hole there’s not much to even go on before I made the config change. I guess it’s about time to move away from core firefox branch… but that comes with it’s own concerns.
By definition, anonymized data can not be reversed. However, many people do not know that difference. If the data would really be anonymized, it would be fine from a data protection point of view.
For now.
I get your point, but also: Moz. acquired pocket and there’s still a flag to disable it. Almost every other privacy-affecting feature has either intuitive settings or about:config flags.
This feels like an unfounded, or at least overblown, fear.
Not that I appreciate pocket being integrated in the first place, but still.