7 ms·

I have switched to Firefox a long time ago. The main reason is privacy. I just trust Mozilla much more than Google (I actually don't trust Google at all). From

by jacek 9y ago

I have switched to Firefox a long time ago. The main reason is privacy. I just trust Mozilla much more than Google (I actually don't trust Google at all). From Google Chrome Privacy Notice [1]: [...] Chrome usage statistics include information about the web pages you visit and your usage of them. [...] We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with partners — like publishers, advertisers or web developers. [1] https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/index.html https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/index.html

on_and_off 9y ago
>We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with partners — like publishers, advertisers or web developers. I don't really understand the issue people have with aggregated information. All the companies I have worked for have been tracking how people use their product. It does not feel like I am invading somebody's privacy by tracking that 20% of our users clicked on the banner in order to see the screen 'xy' and among them, 67% clicked on 'ok' . To be clear, I am only talking about aggregated information
- jacek 9y ago
  I believe that no information about user actions and behaviors should be recorded by a browser. It does not benefit the user in any way, only Google and advertisers. Also we should remember that data needs to be stored first before it is aggregated. What happens with information about each single event?
  - derefr 9y ago
    > It does not benefit the user in any way Really? The browser-maker learning what features people use vs. don't, or what features are fast vs. slow on actual user machines, doesn't benefit the user by getting them a better browser over time? I would like it if the statistics from Chrome in particular, were sent to Chromium-project servers rather than Google servers, though. Even if only Google's derivative of Chromium is collecting the stats, the Chromium-project staff are who will (theoretically) make the best use of the information so collected; and so it'd be much better for them (as a non-profit org) to steward that data, rather than it ending up owned by Google. (Yes, yes, a majority of the Chromium-project staff are Google employees; that doesn't change how changing the data's ownership would change what Google thinks it has a right to do with it.)
    - on_and_off 9y ago
      To add on the user benefit, I am a mobile engineer and we pay a lot of attention to things like what features people use and performances (smoothness). Again, I don't feel like I am invading anybody's privacy when I look at what all my users are doing in order to help decide what to prioritize.
    - londons_explore 9y ago
      Lots of Chromium engineers would like to do that too. It's hard because if (due to a bug) something were not correctly aggregated and anonymized, then their private data would leak to the public. They are also worried about the non-tech press going through the metrics and making misguided headlines like "Google says 66 percent of Chrome users have been targeted by russian malware, and even more in the USA!"
  - tsuujin 9y ago
    As a web developer, this claim is patently false. Reviewing aggregated user behavior data is how good UIs get built. It helps us to identify pain points, confusing or misrepresented user paths, poor hierarchy or site structure, poorly indicated calls to action, and many other valuable metrics. Every positive user experience you've ever had online has been derived from countless hours of studying user behavior, and the larger the source the better it gets. Also note that aggregated user data is typically anonymous, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it identifiable. Some of the best tools for debugging customer support issues start by recording your clicks so a developer can see exactly what caused an issue, rather than guessing and hoping.
    - butno 9y ago
      Those things are much more appropriately addressed by targeted usability testing (eg in lab studies) where participants are aware of, accept, and are compensated for being monitored. Not by mass surveillance. The perspective expressed, basically that anything is acceptable as a means to optimise "user experience" (most likely so more money can be extracted) verges on unethical and immoral, if the bigger issues of group and individual privacy rights are considered. Nevertheless, as a web developer you are most likely only gathering stats from your particular web site, which is a different kettle of fish to browsers gathering and aggregating data across many sites.
    - sigsergv 9y ago
      I'm a web developer, where can I obtain that "aggregated, non-personally identifiable information"? I'm not a publisher or advertiser, just a web developer, possible working in small company.
  - wdr1 9y ago
    Does your opinion change if there is user benefit? E.g., is it okay to track user location, if in aggregate they use it to advice on traffic?
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Aggregated information about an application may be OK, but a web-browser is more like an OS than an application: it has a way to draw UI, a way to communicate over a network, a way to interact with the user's mouse and keyboard, and a way to run applications that are incompatible with other platforms. While I still don't see it as ethically flawless, aggregating information about a website is certainly much more acceptable than aggregating information about a web browser.
- spajus 9y ago
  Problem with sharing your behavior, even in aggregated form, is that you are becoming a subject for all the evil A/B tests which are designed to make you: - buy more stuff you don't need - look at ads longer - more likely to click a button because of specific color - scroll your feed longer because of the content you are getting served I'm not sharing shit with anyone, no matter if it's anonymous, aggregated or not.
  - on_and_off 9y ago
    First, I really wish we would stop calling random stuff we don't like (even for good reasons) evil. It blurs the discourse and hampers objective discussions IMO. I understand that A/B testing can be used to exploit addictions mechanisms and other gray (at best, more likely dark) patterns and IMO that should be forbidden. At the same time, I don't know any mobile company launching a new feature without a server side A/B lock these days. Simply because that way : - it allows you to open the feature gradually and close it if there is a nasty side effect like a crash. - look at usage patterns between 2 features. I guess the separation between helping the user and exploiting them can get blurry but really when we look at data it is to see if they know the feature exists and find it useful. The truth is that almost all users barely know how to use their phones, so each time there is a feature based on long click, gesture, something buried in a screen other than the first one of the app, a button in the toolbar, etc, chances are that most users won't even know that it is there, even if they would like to use this feature. I honestly don't know how to conciliate the 2.
- ivcha 9y ago
  Wow, the reason you would think that the fact that all the companies you've worked for have been doing the same as a positive thing, as well as that it might support any argument for collecting this type of information (or "aggregating") is beyond me. If you don't care about privacy and you don't mind giving away information about your behavior, that's fine, that's your thing, but please refrain yourself from spreading these false claims and arguments.
  - on_and_off 9y ago
    That's cool and all but it would be more persuasive if you added some arguments in your diatribe.

by jacek 9y ago

on_and_off 9y ago

>We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with partners — like publishers, advertisers or web developers. I don't really understand the issue people have with aggregated information. All the companies I have worked for have been tracking how people use their product. It does not feel like I am invading somebody's privacy by tracking that 20% of our users clicked on the banner in order to see the screen 'xy' and among them, 67% clicked on 'ok' . To be clear, I am only talking about aggregated information

jacek 9y ago
I believe that no information about user actions and behaviors should be recorded by a browser. It does not benefit the user in any way, only Google and advertisers. Also we should remember that data needs to be stored first before it is aggregated. What happens with information about each single event?
- derefr 9y ago
  > It does not benefit the user in any way Really? The browser-maker learning what features people use vs. don't, or what features are fast vs. slow on actual user machines, doesn't benefit the user by getting them a better browser over time? I would like it if the statistics from Chrome in particular, were sent to Chromium-project servers rather than Google servers, though. Even if only Google's derivative of Chromium is collecting the stats, the Chromium-project staff are who will (theoretically) make the best use of the information so collected; and so it'd be much better for them (as a non-profit org) to steward that data, rather than it ending up owned by Google. (Yes, yes, a majority of the Chromium-project staff are Google employees; that doesn't change how changing the data's ownership would change what Google thinks it has a right to do with it.)
  - on_and_off 9y ago
    To add on the user benefit, I am a mobile engineer and we pay a lot of attention to things like what features people use and performances (smoothness). Again, I don't feel like I am invading anybody's privacy when I look at what all my users are doing in order to help decide what to prioritize.
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    Lots of Chromium engineers would like to do that too. It's hard because if (due to a bug) something were not correctly aggregated and anonymized, then their private data would leak to the public. They are also worried about the non-tech press going through the metrics and making misguided headlines like "Google says 66 percent of Chrome users have been targeted by russian malware, and even more in the USA!"
- tsuujin 9y ago
  As a web developer, this claim is patently false. Reviewing aggregated user behavior data is how good UIs get built. It helps us to identify pain points, confusing or misrepresented user paths, poor hierarchy or site structure, poorly indicated calls to action, and many other valuable metrics. Every positive user experience you've ever had online has been derived from countless hours of studying user behavior, and the larger the source the better it gets. Also note that aggregated user data is typically anonymous, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it identifiable. Some of the best tools for debugging customer support issues start by recording your clicks so a developer can see exactly what caused an issue, rather than guessing and hoping.
  - butno 9y ago
    Those things are much more appropriately addressed by targeted usability testing (eg in lab studies) where participants are aware of, accept, and are compensated for being monitored. Not by mass surveillance. The perspective expressed, basically that anything is acceptable as a means to optimise "user experience" (most likely so more money can be extracted) verges on unethical and immoral, if the bigger issues of group and individual privacy rights are considered. Nevertheless, as a web developer you are most likely only gathering stats from your particular web site, which is a different kettle of fish to browsers gathering and aggregating data across many sites.
  - sigsergv 9y ago
    I'm a web developer, where can I obtain that "aggregated, non-personally identifiable information"? I'm not a publisher or advertiser, just a web developer, possible working in small company.
- wdr1 9y ago
  Does your opinion change if there is user benefit? E.g., is it okay to track user location, if in aggregate they use it to advice on traffic?
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Aggregated information about an application may be OK, but a web-browser is more like an OS than an application: it has a way to draw UI, a way to communicate over a network, a way to interact with the user's mouse and keyboard, and a way to run applications that are incompatible with other platforms. While I still don't see it as ethically flawless, aggregating information about a website is certainly much more acceptable than aggregating information about a web browser.
spajus 9y ago
Problem with sharing your behavior, even in aggregated form, is that you are becoming a subject for all the evil A/B tests which are designed to make you: - buy more stuff you don't need - look at ads longer - more likely to click a button because of specific color - scroll your feed longer because of the content you are getting served I'm not sharing shit with anyone, no matter if it's anonymous, aggregated or not.
- on_and_off 9y ago
  First, I really wish we would stop calling random stuff we don't like (even for good reasons) evil. It blurs the discourse and hampers objective discussions IMO. I understand that A/B testing can be used to exploit addictions mechanisms and other gray (at best, more likely dark) patterns and IMO that should be forbidden. At the same time, I don't know any mobile company launching a new feature without a server side A/B lock these days. Simply because that way : - it allows you to open the feature gradually and close it if there is a nasty side effect like a crash. - look at usage patterns between 2 features. I guess the separation between helping the user and exploiting them can get blurry but really when we look at data it is to see if they know the feature exists and find it useful. The truth is that almost all users barely know how to use their phones, so each time there is a feature based on long click, gesture, something buried in a screen other than the first one of the app, a button in the toolbar, etc, chances are that most users won't even know that it is there, even if they would like to use this feature. I honestly don't know how to conciliate the 2.
ivcha 9y ago
Wow, the reason you would think that the fact that all the companies you've worked for have been doing the same as a positive thing, as well as that it might support any argument for collecting this type of information (or "aggregating") is beyond me. If you don't care about privacy and you don't mind giving away information about your behavior, that's fine, that's your thing, but please refrain yourself from spreading these false claims and arguments.
- on_and_off 9y ago
  That's cool and all but it would be more persuasive if you added some arguments in your diatribe.