3 ms·

So this is coming from the Chief Marketing Officer...!? If this was a marketing/advertising related debacle, then the buck stops with him. Either he approved t

So this is coming from the Chief Marketing Officer...!? If this was a marketing/advertising related debacle, then the buck stops with him. Either he approved this (which shows privacy isn't on his list of concerns), or he doesn't know what his marketing department is doing (which doesn't speak volumes about his leadership). Interesting that no other Chief Officer is writing the letter.

cjbprime 9y ago
This is also the same person who wrote a defensive non-apology on the evening of the initial publicity, so it seems like they owe us an explanation of why they were wrong then that's missing here.
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  He's getting pushed infront of the bus, though I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't the only officer who knew what was going on.
  - cjbprime 9y ago
    If he was really getting pushed in front of the bus, the apology would be from the CEO (I think it should have been here, for something as serious as a loss of trust) and the CMO wouldn't work there anymore. :)
int_19h 9y ago
What really surprised me about all this, is that apparently not a single person involved in shipping the extension had any concerns about that whole "install it for everyone, oh, and it shouldn't show in list of extensions either" (it did, but that was a bug - it wasn't supposed to). It would seem to imply either that there are very few people involved in that decision - which is strange, because, given the privacy and security implications of this kind of stuff, this is exactly the sort of thing where you get formal sign-offs, probably including legal. Or that there were many people, but none of them cared - which doesn't speak well of Mozilla's internal priorities...
- rocky1138 9y ago
  > apparently not a single person involved in shipping the extension had any concerns You don't know this for a fact, do you? A lot of discussion goes on at companies that we don't always know about before a decision is made by someone holding a more senior position.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    I don't know this for a fact. But I'd expect "told you so" public posts by now if that were the case.

cjbprime 9y ago

This is also the same person who wrote a defensive non-apology on the evening of the initial publicity, so it seems like they owe us an explanation of why they were wrong then that's missing here.

bjt2n3904 9y ago
He's getting pushed infront of the bus, though I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't the only officer who knew what was going on.
- cjbprime 9y ago
  If he was really getting pushed in front of the bus, the apology would be from the CEO (I think it should have been here, for something as serious as a loss of trust) and the CMO wouldn't work there anymore. :)

int_19h 9y ago

What really surprised me about all this, is that apparently not a single person involved in shipping the extension had any concerns about that whole "install it for everyone, oh, and it shouldn't show in list of extensions either" (it did, but that was a bug - it wasn't supposed to). It would seem to imply either that there are very few people involved in that decision - which is strange, because, given the privacy and security implications of this kind of stuff, this is exactly the sort of thing where you get formal sign-offs, probably including legal. Or that there were many people, but none of them cared - which doesn't speak well of Mozilla's internal priorities...

rocky1138 9y ago
> apparently not a single person involved in shipping the extension had any concerns You don't know this for a fact, do you? A lot of discussion goes on at companies that we don't always know about before a decision is made by someone holding a more senior position.
- int_19h 9y ago
  I don't know this for a fact. But I'd expect "told you so" public posts by now if that were the case.