4 ms·

Mozilla Mr. Robot promo backfires after installing extension without permission

56 points by joeyespo 9y ago

a0-prw 9y ago
If you need a marketing division, Mozilla, you already have a problem right there :))
akerro 9y ago
Technically it was with permission, because people had shild program enabled in Firefox, it's a different story who enabled it, and why it re-enables after upgrade.
- gpm 9y ago
  My understanding is that the extension was installed for everyone, without permission, but only actually did anything with permission.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  It shouldn't be possible to install add-ons without the user's explicit permission IMHO. The fact that this functionality exists is bad enough, even if they didn't use it.
- detaro 9y ago
  Does participating in a program to study potential improvements in Firefox equal permission to roll out advertising? I guess one could construe it as "experiment how people react to ads", but I doubt that's what those responsible had in mind.
scrollaway 9y ago
> Here is Mozilla’s response, courtesy of Chief Marketing Officer Jascha Kaykas-Wolff [...] A tone-deaf response that doesn't acknowledge the issue with their approach, after two days of official silence. Mozilla, it's time for some serious introspection.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  Those responsible need to be fired or resign.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rdiddly 9y ago
  At least one word of regret or even simple acknowledgement would be appropriate from Mr. Kaykas-Wolff. Reiterating that it's not a privacy issue is insulting to everybody who recognizes it as a privacy issue. Is collecting data the only way to breach privacy? Assume for the moment that it is. That means for example that everybody is totally okay with ransomware, which only writes to your hard drive. No, I think actually possibly maybe everybody's right. Can you get all caught-up first please, before you address the public?
nkkollaw 9y ago
Mozilla was doing so well with Firefox 57, I almost thought there would be a come back. This is bad. Very bad. How can they claim they care about privacy, now? Privacy and control was how they sold the product, now they've proven user have absolutely no control, and Mozilla doesn't respect its users. This could be the final nail in the coffin.
mariusmg 9y ago
They had the fucking permission, that's actually part of the problem. They ship Firefox with the "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" permission already enabled (bad bad bad). And they did this shit for some promotion for a TV show. What a clusterfuck Mozilla, hope you learned your lesson.
endymi0n 9y ago
The amount of chuzpah, ignorance and insensitivity in that CMO's response is staggering and completely out of touch with their core audience. Looks like they didn't have a look at what happened to Patreon lately.
djhworld 9y ago
It sounds like the marketing department has been left to run amok with little or no oversight
roflc0ptic 9y ago
I really don’t understand the negative sentiment. You’re trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine, and automatically push updates. Is there a substantive difference between updating FF binaries directly vs calling it an add on? Just not grokking it
- detaro 9y ago
  Why do you think adding this through a regular update would not lead to negative reactions? Remember Pocket? (Which in contrast to this was well-communicated and an actual feature)
- nkozyra 9y ago
  Because it was arbitrary and opaque? It was not apparent that there was a promotion being implemented by a feature of the browser not explicitly used for marketing. It introduces an trust problem.
  - kfrzcode 9y ago
    So, who can we trust with our web browsing, if not Mozilla? In your opinion, of course. Just curious.
    - nkozyra 9y ago
      I think that's the point, isn't it? This is one of those groups we felt somewhat confident with.
- jdbernard 9y ago
  > You're trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine Right, and that's the problem: trust. I trust them to be responsible with the unfettered access I've given them. I trust them to only use that access for the things we've agreed upon: updates to the core browser and some specific data-collection to help them understand and improve how the product is being used. Now they are using that channel to push advertisements onto my system without asking. They are overstepping the intended use of the update channel we had agreed upon in a very non-transparent manner. Makes me wonder if I can trust them. I only gave them the ability to push automatic updates because I trusted them. If I can't trust them not to abuse the privilege I need to think about revoking the privilege and uninstalling Firefox.
dang 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730
O1111OOO 9y ago
This is how it starts. One show, opt-in. I happen to like Mr. Robot but what happens when a show I dislike is pushed on me. Later on, it's 5 shows with a forced opt-out. After that, it's a bunch of other stuff with a convoluted way of opting out (similar to "installing" a 3rd-party search engine). Mozilla says it's a show it's users like... This is the scariest statement from Mozilla so far. It's the kind of thing the Facebooks, the Googles and all the others are doing via their surveillance mechanisms. After a while, the browser will be littered with Kardashian stuff because the majority will dictate the lowest common denominator.

56 points by joeyespo 9y ago

If you need a marketing division, Mozilla, you already have a problem right there :))

Technically it was with permission, because people had shild program enabled in Firefox, it's a different story who enabled it, and why it re-enables after upgrade.

gpm 9y ago
My understanding is that the extension was installed for everyone, without permission, but only actually did anything with permission.
nkkollaw 9y ago
It shouldn't be possible to install add-ons without the user's explicit permission IMHO. The fact that this functionality exists is bad enough, even if they didn't use it.
detaro 9y ago
Does participating in a program to study potential improvements in Firefox equal permission to roll out advertising? I guess one could construe it as "experiment how people react to ads", but I doubt that's what those responsible had in mind.

scrollaway 9y ago

> Here is Mozilla’s response, courtesy of Chief Marketing Officer Jascha Kaykas-Wolff [...] A tone-deaf response that doesn't acknowledge the issue with their approach, after two days of official silence. Mozilla, it's time for some serious introspection.

mlinksva 9y ago
Those responsible need to be fired or resign.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rdiddly 9y ago
At least one word of regret or even simple acknowledgement would be appropriate from Mr. Kaykas-Wolff. Reiterating that it's not a privacy issue is insulting to everybody who recognizes it as a privacy issue. Is collecting data the only way to breach privacy? Assume for the moment that it is. That means for example that everybody is totally okay with ransomware, which only writes to your hard drive. No, I think actually possibly maybe everybody's right. Can you get all caught-up first please, before you address the public?

nkkollaw 9y ago

Mozilla was doing so well with Firefox 57, I almost thought there would be a come back. This is bad. Very bad. How can they claim they care about privacy, now? Privacy and control was how they sold the product, now they've proven user have absolutely no control, and Mozilla doesn't respect its users. This could be the final nail in the coffin.

mariusmg 9y ago

They had the fucking permission, that's actually part of the problem. They ship Firefox with the "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" permission already enabled (bad bad bad). And they did this shit for some promotion for a TV show. What a clusterfuck Mozilla, hope you learned your lesson.

endymi0n 9y ago

The amount of chuzpah, ignorance and insensitivity in that CMO's response is staggering and completely out of touch with their core audience. Looks like they didn't have a look at what happened to Patreon lately.

djhworld 9y ago

It sounds like the marketing department has been left to run amok with little or no oversight

roflc0ptic 9y ago

I really don’t understand the negative sentiment. You’re trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine, and automatically push updates. Is there a substantive difference between updating FF binaries directly vs calling it an add on? Just not grokking it

detaro 9y ago
Why do you think adding this through a regular update would not lead to negative reactions? Remember Pocket? (Which in contrast to this was well-communicated and an actual feature)
nkozyra 9y ago
Because it was arbitrary and opaque? It was not apparent that there was a promotion being implemented by a feature of the browser not explicitly used for marketing. It introduces an trust problem.
- kfrzcode 9y ago
  So, who can we trust with our web browsing, if not Mozilla? In your opinion, of course. Just curious.
  - nkozyra 9y ago
    I think that's the point, isn't it? This is one of those groups we felt somewhat confident with.
jdbernard 9y ago
> You're trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine Right, and that's the problem: trust. I trust them to be responsible with the unfettered access I've given them. I trust them to only use that access for the things we've agreed upon: updates to the core browser and some specific data-collection to help them understand and improve how the product is being used. Now they are using that channel to push advertisements onto my system without asking. They are overstepping the intended use of the update channel we had agreed upon in a very non-transparent manner. Makes me wonder if I can trust them. I only gave them the ability to push automatic updates because I trusted them. If I can't trust them not to abuse the privilege I need to think about revoking the privilege and uninstalling Firefox.

dang 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730

O1111OOO 9y ago

This is how it starts. One show, opt-in. I happen to like Mr. Robot but what happens when a show I dislike is pushed on me. Later on, it's 5 shows with a forced opt-out. After that, it's a bunch of other stuff with a convoluted way of opting out (similar to "installing" a 3rd-party search engine). Mozilla says it's a show it's users like... This is the scariest statement from Mozilla so far. It's the kind of thing the Facebooks, the Googles and all the others are doing via their surveillance mechanisms. After a while, the browser will be littered with Kardashian stuff because the majority will dictate the lowest common denominator.