5 ms·

> What we plan to do now is run an opt-out SHIELD study [6] to validate our implementation of RAPPOR. IMHO, this is a bad idea. Many people I know already use

> What we plan to do now is run an opt-out SHIELD study [6] to validate our implementation of RAPPOR. IMHO, this is a bad idea. Many people I know already use Firefox because they're weary to give Google (Chrome) all their data. Firefox should make this feature opt-in only.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
> Firefox should make this feature opt-in only. I agree, but note that they are explicitly trying to get more info than they can from the small, biased sample that is users opting in.
- wila 9y ago
  Then they should fix that by asking in the GUI politely if you are willing to share and also explain how-to disable it easily. Just starting to collect your browsing data is a bad idea (tm) especially if your main claim is "more privacy".
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > they are explicitly trying to get more info than they can from the small, biased sample that is users opting in. Maybe because most people using Firefox use it precisely because they don't want the browser vendor to track their behaviour? I wonder how the Torbrowser folks will deal with this.
- Fuxy 9y ago
  They claim is biased but is it really biased? How do they know? I think this is just making up excuses so they can collect more data. They get good enough data from the people that have volunteered it. I don't know what makes them think it's biased but I seriously doubt that is true.
  - Operyl 9y ago
    Because, usually the kind of people that’d opt in are techies/power users or work (volunteer, or paid) for Mozilla themselves. Let’s say only 1% of your userbase opts in to this, how is that not biased? (As it currently stands, I believe this is a further optin in a tucked away menu).
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Then they should make the possibility to opt-in more prominent, instead of switching to opt-out with the option tucked away in some menu where only techies/power users will disable it.
    - pishpash 9y ago
      The Mozilla user base is already biased. Plus they can run experimental test fixtures to canvas sites. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
  - gcp 9y ago
    >They claim is biased but is it really biased? How do they know? I think this is just making up excuses so they can collect more data. Informed, constructive opinion there. One clear sign of the bias is that the crash rate of the browser goes up massively every time a new version transforms from beta to release. Clearly, it's not renaming that string that makes the browser crash. The populations are just fundamentally different. To give an obvious example, beta users are overwhelmingly more like to have up to date video drivers. (Which can be seen in crash reports, but is also very logical).
spiderfarmer 9y ago
Absolutely. If this is helping users, it should be easy to convince them to turn it on.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  That's not how it works. Most users don't care and will simply use whatever the default is; and when it comes to anonymous usage statistics, "most users" is _exactly_ the group of people you want to be collecting them from; otherwise your results will be skewed heavily in favor of a small minority of power users.
  - huhtenberg 9y ago
    > Most users don't care and will simply use whatever the default is These users will be installing Chrome, not Firefox.
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      I hope not. If that's true, then Firefox is in serious trouble. There aren't nearly enough power users and privacy enthusiasts around to make Firefox a significant player in the browser market all on their own.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        That’s exactly why Firefox is around 5% global marketshare. Only the powerusers are left. And this move will also drive them away.
      - quickben 9y ago
        Why not? The switch barrier is non existent. Most of the replies in this thread are ideological. Nobody is arguing CSS rendering speed comparisons and such. People use Firefox because they like it. People are irrational but like is huge. Toyota over Hyundai. Vacations at the sea instead of skiing. Firefox over Chrome. The like is a habit, but if all things are equal and free, a very flexible one.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
This might finally prompt me to start compiling Firefox for all my devices, or at least evaluate some of the high profile forks. It's not just about the data, it's about the lack of consent. If you just ask people for permission on the initial startup, I'm sure most people will be fine with enabling it. Last time I installed Firefox, it just showed a tiny bar at the bottom of the window, which is pretty easy to miss. I'd expect fewer dark patterns from Mozilla, that's the kind of shady behavior you see coming from Microsoft. I always try my best to disable or block anything which phones home without explicitly asking for consent. Tunnelblick [0] is a good example of this being done well. On the initial run they ask if you want to enable automatic updates. It includes the option to disable sending anonymous system information, as well as including a disclosure widget with a brief explanation and a table showing the information that would be sent. [1] [0] https://www.tunnelblick.net https://www.tunnelblick.net [1] http://i.imgur.com/tWQX5aB.png http://i.imgur.com/tWQX5aB.png

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago

> Firefox should make this feature opt-in only. I agree, but note that they are explicitly trying to get more info than they can from the small, biased sample that is users opting in.

wila 9y ago
Then they should fix that by asking in the GUI politely if you are willing to share and also explain how-to disable it easily. Just starting to collect your browsing data is a bad idea (tm) especially if your main claim is "more privacy".
kogepathic 9y ago
> they are explicitly trying to get more info than they can from the small, biased sample that is users opting in. Maybe because most people using Firefox use it precisely because they don't want the browser vendor to track their behaviour? I wonder how the Torbrowser folks will deal with this.
Fuxy 9y ago
They claim is biased but is it really biased? How do they know? I think this is just making up excuses so they can collect more data. They get good enough data from the people that have volunteered it. I don't know what makes them think it's biased but I seriously doubt that is true.
- Operyl 9y ago
  Because, usually the kind of people that’d opt in are techies/power users or work (volunteer, or paid) for Mozilla themselves. Let’s say only 1% of your userbase opts in to this, how is that not biased? (As it currently stands, I believe this is a further optin in a tucked away menu).
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Then they should make the possibility to opt-in more prominent, instead of switching to opt-out with the option tucked away in some menu where only techies/power users will disable it.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    The Mozilla user base is already biased. Plus they can run experimental test fixtures to canvas sites. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
- gcp 9y ago
  >They claim is biased but is it really biased? How do they know? I think this is just making up excuses so they can collect more data. Informed, constructive opinion there. One clear sign of the bias is that the crash rate of the browser goes up massively every time a new version transforms from beta to release. Clearly, it's not renaming that string that makes the browser crash. The populations are just fundamentally different. To give an obvious example, beta users are overwhelmingly more like to have up to date video drivers. (Which can be seen in crash reports, but is also very logical).

spiderfarmer 9y ago

Absolutely. If this is helping users, it should be easy to convince them to turn it on.

Ajedi32 9y ago
That's not how it works. Most users don't care and will simply use whatever the default is; and when it comes to anonymous usage statistics, "most users" is _exactly_ the group of people you want to be collecting them from; otherwise your results will be skewed heavily in favor of a small minority of power users.
- huhtenberg 9y ago
  > Most users don't care and will simply use whatever the default is These users will be installing Chrome, not Firefox.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    I hope not. If that's true, then Firefox is in serious trouble. There aren't nearly enough power users and privacy enthusiasts around to make Firefox a significant player in the browser market all on their own.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      That’s exactly why Firefox is around 5% global marketshare. Only the powerusers are left. And this move will also drive them away.
    - quickben 9y ago
      Why not? The switch barrier is non existent. Most of the replies in this thread are ideological. Nobody is arguing CSS rendering speed comparisons and such. People use Firefox because they like it. People are irrational but like is huge. Toyota over Hyundai. Vacations at the sea instead of skiing. Firefox over Chrome. The like is a habit, but if all things are equal and free, a very flexible one.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

This might finally prompt me to start compiling Firefox for all my devices, or at least evaluate some of the high profile forks. It's not just about the data, it's about the lack of consent. If you just ask people for permission on the initial startup, I'm sure most people will be fine with enabling it. Last time I installed Firefox, it just showed a tiny bar at the bottom of the window, which is pretty easy to miss. I'd expect fewer dark patterns from Mozilla, that's the kind of shady behavior you see coming from Microsoft. I always try my best to disable or block anything which phones home without explicitly asking for consent. Tunnelblick [0] is a good example of this being done well. On the initial run they ask if you want to enable automatic updates. It includes the option to disable sending anonymous system information, as well as including a disclosure widget with a brief explanation and a table showing the information that would be sent. [1] [0] https://www.tunnelblick.net https://www.tunnelblick.net [1] http://i.imgur.com/tWQX5aB.png http://i.imgur.com/tWQX5aB.png