10 ms·

The single largest advantage of Firefox over other browsers is that despite all odds and occasional missteps they managed to respect users' desire for complete

The single largest advantage of Firefox over other browsers is that despite all odds and occasional missteps they managed to respect users' desire for complete privacy. For Firefox we want to better understand how people use our product to improve their experience. Sure thing. But the fact that they are unhappy that some (many?) people are opting-out from the data collection is merely a sign that they don't want to understand why people are using Firefox in the first place. By opting out from the data collection people effectively tell them over and over again that they don't want for Mozilla "to understand how they use Firefox" or "to improve their experience", not at the expense of their privacy. No phoning home. No telemetry, no data collection. No "light" version of the same, no "privacy-respecting" what-have-you. No means No. Nada. Zilch. Try and shovel any of that down people's throats and the idea of Firefox as a user's browser will die.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gvx 9y ago
> Currently we can collect this data when the user opts in, but we don't have a way to collect unbiased data, without explicit consent (opt-out). That to me suggests the problem isn't that too many people are opting-out, it's that not enough people are opting-in.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  Clearly those users that dont choose to opt in are wrong, and mozilla needs to make this choice for them... This trend towards parentalism in software, especially software that is supposed to be user driven is frankly a steaming pile of garbage. If you have any shred of pretense of being pro-privacy and pro-user dont do this mozilla.
  - gvx 9y ago
    It's more that a lot of people really don't care one way or another, and will neither go out of their way to opt-in or opt-out. Additionally, it's not that Mozilla just disregards user privacy here: differential privacy being used would mean that no user has to reveal their private information, but looking at all the data in aggregate would still allow Mozilla to gain useful information on how to make Firefox better.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      The people that don't care one way or another are mostly using Chrome.
    - quickben 9y ago
      So, let me see if I can follow your argument. Because most people don't care, it was decided to implement a feature that is flat out contrary to people caring. Management decisions like this don't exactly inspire confidence about the future of the browser.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  It's not even that not enough people are opting in, it's that the people opting in are "people that would opt-in", i.e. they match a certain profile that makes them not representative of the average user, and thus less good sources to draw conclusions from. Because presumably, the users who opt-in are tech-savvy users who actually read dialog windows presented to them, and thus behave very differently from the average user.
Ajedi32 9y ago
I'm not really sure what your concern is here. Let's assume for a moment that Firefox's implementation of differential privacy in this scenario is completely correct, and that as a result it's completely impossible (even in an information-theoretic sense) to learn anything about any individual user using this data; only about many users in aggregate. In this scenario, how exactly would Firefox's actions here compromise anyone's privacy?
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  That is a massively unwarrented assumption, and the burden to show things are otherise is on the party that wishes to push these changes.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    Fair point. What would you accept as sufficient proof that their implementation is correct? If your answer is "nothing" then I think you're being unreasonable. Firefox risks compromising security/privacy with _every_ new feature they implement, not just this one, and it's clear from [other comments][1] in this thread that this feature is just as important for the overall functionality of Firefox as any other feature would be. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072157
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  in 2017, how hard is it to understand that many of us don't trust some sweet talking companies? simple things work. simple NO is simply... NO. there is nothing more to discuss. if they will follow with it, they will lose tons of customers and what is worse, credibility. why bother if there is chrome?
- joosters 9y ago
  Why are they not letting people decide? If it is not harming anyone's privacy, and they make it clear that it isn't, then what is the problem with letting people opt-in to it? Instead, it's telling that they are choosing to force people to opt-out. They know that their users don't want this, but don't care.
gbuk2013 9y ago
> No phoning home. No telemetry, no data collection. No "light" version of the same, no "privacy-respecting" what-have-you. No means No. Nada. Zilch. Try and shovel any of that down people's throats and the idea of Firefox as a user's browser will die. https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 And now this :-( I have been using Firefox since before it was called that. I develop my apps in it, even though most of my colleagues have switched to Chrome years ago. Even though it is (or was for a while) slower than Chrome for things like Canvas. But I use because I believe in Free Software. But Mozilla keeps disappointing. DRM, bundled 3-rd party apps, analytics, tracking... It is just so very sad. :-( Also, I have 17 add-ons installed (11 active). At present, of these 17, only 2 will continue working after November when the switch to WebExtensions is enforced. Where to go from here?
- veeti 9y ago
  > DRM Mozilla fought DRM until the very end and lost. If Firefox is to have any chance at remaining a mainstream browser it needs to support Netflix and the likes. You can't seriously blame them for this, because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. EME is implemented as unintrusively, securely and privately in Firefox as possible. No DRM is downloaded or run on your computer until you specifically consent to it, and the DRM components run in a sandbox.
  - gbuk2013 9y ago
    > Mozilla fought DRM until the very end and lost. If Firefox is to have any chance at remaining a mainstream browser it needs to support Netflix and the likes. You can't seriously blame them for this, because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Yes I can, and I will, because they sold out. They sold out their principles for the sake of market share. (And looking at their marked share, fat lot of good that did for them anyway.)
    - 0134340 9y ago
      I'd suggest you research the topic of negative and positive liberty. I'm all for a free and open source experience but what about the liberties of content creators? What about my right to as a user to be offered content with the knowledge that I won't and don't want to know its inner workings as long as it's passive non-malicious code?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gvx 9y ago

> Currently we can collect this data when the user opts in, but we don't have a way to collect unbiased data, without explicit consent (opt-out). That to me suggests the problem isn't that too many people are opting-out, it's that not enough people are opting-in.

throwaway2048 9y ago
Clearly those users that dont choose to opt in are wrong, and mozilla needs to make this choice for them... This trend towards parentalism in software, especially software that is supposed to be user driven is frankly a steaming pile of garbage. If you have any shred of pretense of being pro-privacy and pro-user dont do this mozilla.
- gvx 9y ago
  It's more that a lot of people really don't care one way or another, and will neither go out of their way to opt-in or opt-out. Additionally, it's not that Mozilla just disregards user privacy here: differential privacy being used would mean that no user has to reveal their private information, but looking at all the data in aggregate would still allow Mozilla to gain useful information on how to make Firefox better.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    The people that don't care one way or another are mostly using Chrome.
  - quickben 9y ago
    So, let me see if I can follow your argument. Because most people don't care, it was decided to implement a feature that is flat out contrary to people caring. Management decisions like this don't exactly inspire confidence about the future of the browser.
Vinnl 9y ago
It's not even that not enough people are opting in, it's that the people opting in are "people that would opt-in", i.e. they match a certain profile that makes them not representative of the average user, and thus less good sources to draw conclusions from. Because presumably, the users who opt-in are tech-savvy users who actually read dialog windows presented to them, and thus behave very differently from the average user.

Ajedi32 9y ago

I'm not really sure what your concern is here. Let's assume for a moment that Firefox's implementation of differential privacy in this scenario is completely correct, and that as a result it's completely impossible (even in an information-theoretic sense) to learn anything about any individual user using this data; only about many users in aggregate. In this scenario, how exactly would Firefox's actions here compromise anyone's privacy?

throwaway2048 9y ago
That is a massively unwarrented assumption, and the burden to show things are otherise is on the party that wishes to push these changes.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Fair point. What would you accept as sufficient proof that their implementation is correct? If your answer is "nothing" then I think you're being unreasonable. Firefox risks compromising security/privacy with _every_ new feature they implement, not just this one, and it's clear from [other comments][1] in this thread that this feature is just as important for the overall functionality of Firefox as any other feature would be. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072157
saiya-jin 9y ago
in 2017, how hard is it to understand that many of us don't trust some sweet talking companies? simple things work. simple NO is simply... NO. there is nothing more to discuss. if they will follow with it, they will lose tons of customers and what is worse, credibility. why bother if there is chrome?
joosters 9y ago
Why are they not letting people decide? If it is not harming anyone's privacy, and they make it clear that it isn't, then what is the problem with letting people opt-in to it? Instead, it's telling that they are choosing to force people to opt-out. They know that their users don't want this, but don't care.

gbuk2013 9y ago

> No phoning home. No telemetry, no data collection. No "light" version of the same, no "privacy-respecting" what-have-you. No means No. Nada. Zilch. Try and shovel any of that down people's throats and the idea of Firefox as a user's browser will die. https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 And now this :-( I have been using Firefox since before it was called that. I develop my apps in it, even though most of my colleagues have switched to Chrome years ago. Even though it is (or was for a while) slower than Chrome for things like Canvas. But I use because I believe in Free Software. But Mozilla keeps disappointing. DRM, bundled 3-rd party apps, analytics, tracking... It is just so very sad. :-( Also, I have 17 add-ons installed (11 active). At present, of these 17, only 2 will continue working after November when the switch to WebExtensions is enforced. Where to go from here?

veeti 9y ago
> DRM Mozilla fought DRM until the very end and lost. If Firefox is to have any chance at remaining a mainstream browser it needs to support Netflix and the likes. You can't seriously blame them for this, because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. EME is implemented as unintrusively, securely and privately in Firefox as possible. No DRM is downloaded or run on your computer until you specifically consent to it, and the DRM components run in a sandbox.
- gbuk2013 9y ago
  > Mozilla fought DRM until the very end and lost. If Firefox is to have any chance at remaining a mainstream browser it needs to support Netflix and the likes. You can't seriously blame them for this, because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Yes I can, and I will, because they sold out. They sold out their principles for the sake of market share. (And looking at their marked share, fat lot of good that did for them anyway.)
  - 0134340 9y ago
    I'd suggest you research the topic of negative and positive liberty. I'm all for a free and open source experience but what about the liberties of content creators? What about my right to as a user to be offered content with the knowledge that I won't and don't want to know its inner workings as long as it's passive non-malicious code?