7 ms·

I understand the desire for statistics, but they should make it more obvious that nightly isn't just daily builds from master. I've run Nightly from time to tim

by aorth 9y ago

I understand the desire for statistics, but they should make it more obvious that nightly isn't just daily builds from master. I've run Nightly from time to time and had no idea it was automatically opting in to Shield studies. Both this and the Mr. Robot extension issue a few months ago erode my trust in Mozilla a little. Counterpoint: only god knows what Google is sending itself from Chrome!

nallerooth 9y ago
The difference here is that you expect Google to collect -a lot- of data about you and your browsing habits. You can also be quite sure that they'll want to keep that data to themselves. When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > You can also be quite sure that they'll want to keep that data to themselves. I've traditionally made the same argument. I still mostly believe it WRT Google. Facebook's current woes with Cambridge Analytica has hurt my confidence in this some.
- caconym_ 9y ago
  > When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further. That or stolen thanks to negligent data handling practices. Or maybe both (e.g. Equifax).
- geofft 9y ago
  > When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further. As stated in the mailing list thread linked in the article, Mozilla has a legal agreement with Cloudflare that the data will not be stored long-term, let alone sold or shared. My reading is that they're keeping information about DNS requests and responses, but not who made the request, for 24 hours for debugging purposes, and then getting rid of all logs. The data they're actually interested in is performance, not the DNS flow itself. You're welcome to decide that Mozilla's trust in other companies is misplaced even if they get a signed contract, and if you do, that would be a good reason to cease using Firefox (Nightly or otherwise!). But if you're not of that opinion, it doesn't make sense to worry that the data simply happens to go through a third party. (Also, what third parties see your DNS data today? Do you think your ISP is not tracking this?)
TD-Linux 9y ago
>only god knows what Google is sending itself from Chrome! Chrome always uses Google DNS, which means that they already collect all the data that Mozilla could potentially collect from the DoH test.
- stordoff 9y ago
  Citation needed. DNS-based block lists (e.g. Pi-hole) appear to work fine on Chrome.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TD-Linux 9y ago
    The feature is called "async DNS" and I believe queries both the system resolver and Google, and takes the first response. https://superuser.com/questions/656938/does-chrome-use-a-different-dns-server-from-the-os#656945 https://superuser.com/questions/656938/does-chrome-use-a-dif...
    - lmns 9y ago
      Your link says nothing about Google Public DNS.
    - apexalpha 9y ago
      Isn't that only if you opt in for the Google compression service that essentially uses the Google network as a proxy? I had host-based anti-Adverstising on my network and Chrome never bypasses it even though it should if it were going through Google DNS as well.
stordoff 9y ago
> erode my trust in Mozilla a little Exactly where I'm at. I get the impression that there's an (probably unintentional/unconscious) attitude at Mozilla that they can use user devices for whatever they like providing they can justify it as providing _some_ future benefit to them. That's probably not actually the case, but it's certainly how their actions make it look. I don't exactly trust Google any further, but I at least feel they are more upfront about their intention and don't push seemingly arbitrary experiments out to users or involve third parties in the data collection.
- cpeterso 9y ago
  > I don't exactly trust Google any further, but I at least feel they are more upfront about their intention and don't push seemingly arbitrary experiments out to users How do you know what experiments Google is running on unsuspecting Chrome users right now? This conversation arose precisely because Mozilla announced it on a public mailing before the experiment started. You can see any current or past Firefox experiments that you've been in on Firefox's about:studies page. I work at Mozilla, but not on these experiments.
- thristian 9y ago
  A more charitable assessment might be that Mozilla is trying to serve too many use-cases. Chrome is quite happy doing the 20% work that gets them 80% of the userbase, and all the users that Chrome happily sidelines come running to Firefox. That's cool, but some of those users have wildly different priorities, like we see in this case. Some users want protection from interference by their government or their ISP, and couldn't care less if some of their metadata winds up in a database on the other side of the world. Other users are quite relaxed about their local government or ISP, but don't want any of their stuff entering US jurisdiction. And it's not practical to set up a world-wide infrastructure of DNS-over-HTTPS servers just to find out whether it's worthwhile. It's not so much that Mozilla feels "they can use user devices for whatever they like", as much as Mozilla's at a local maximum, and trying to improve anything for some part of their userbase means neglecting some other part, even if only temporarily. And then the neglected parts feel betrayed.
shubb 9y ago
I think that the change mentioned in the post is about 'use cloudflare for DNS rather than whatever your local DNS is'. That has advantages and disadvantages - most people use a DNS automatically configured by the ISP they are using. That might be an untrustworthy DNS from a local access point, or a logging DNS at your ISP. Do you trust cloudflare or BT/comcast less? Where it gets a bit more worrying is - if you specifically use a DNS from your VPN to prevent DNS leaks? Will this even play nice with 'signin page on free wifi served by DNS redirect'.
Vinnl 9y ago
> Both this and the Mr. Robot extension issue a few months ago erode my trust in Mozilla a little. Maybe good to know: the Mr. Robot extension did not send anything anywhere or otherwise did anything unless you explicitly flipped a switch manually in about:config. The thing that was bad about it was that it was listed among your extensions, making it look like a virus, but otherwise it was harmless.
- gilrain 9y ago
  And that it was a marketing campaign produced in partnership with a television show that somehow wound up in Firefox. What it did or didn't actually do is almost beside the point to those of us who care. Even Google, an advertising company, is not so brazen as to market third-parties in its own browser.
seba_dos1 9y ago
It was perfectly clear to me - I felt like they go out of their way to tell you that using Nightly collects some data about your browsing to make Firefox better. That's literally how they advertise using Nightly.
tradesmanhelix 9y ago
> they should make it more obvious that nightly isn't just daily builds from master. From the downloads page [1]: "Firefox Nightly automatically sends feedback to Mozilla." Not sure how they could make it more obvious. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/
throrthrowth 9y ago
Assume that Chrome is tracking as much as it possibly can, within the bounds set by the privacy policy. The same goes for all products by big IT companies.

by aorth 9y ago

nallerooth 9y ago

The difference here is that you expect Google to collect -a lot- of data about you and your browsing habits. You can also be quite sure that they'll want to keep that data to themselves. When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further.

kbenson 9y ago
> You can also be quite sure that they'll want to keep that data to themselves. I've traditionally made the same argument. I still mostly believe it WRT Google. Facebook's current woes with Cambridge Analytica has hurt my confidence in this some.
caconym_ 9y ago
> When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further. That or stolen thanks to negligent data handling practices. Or maybe both (e.g. Equifax).
geofft 9y ago
> When my data ends up at a third party, especially without my knowledge, I'm much more concerned about it being sold and or shared further. As stated in the mailing list thread linked in the article, Mozilla has a legal agreement with Cloudflare that the data will not be stored long-term, let alone sold or shared. My reading is that they're keeping information about DNS requests and responses, but not who made the request, for 24 hours for debugging purposes, and then getting rid of all logs. The data they're actually interested in is performance, not the DNS flow itself. You're welcome to decide that Mozilla's trust in other companies is misplaced even if they get a signed contract, and if you do, that would be a good reason to cease using Firefox (Nightly or otherwise!). But if you're not of that opinion, it doesn't make sense to worry that the data simply happens to go through a third party. (Also, what third parties see your DNS data today? Do you think your ISP is not tracking this?)

TD-Linux 9y ago

>only god knows what Google is sending itself from Chrome! Chrome always uses Google DNS, which means that they already collect all the data that Mozilla could potentially collect from the DoH test.

stordoff 9y ago
Citation needed. DNS-based block lists (e.g. Pi-hole) appear to work fine on Chrome.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TD-Linux 9y ago
  The feature is called "async DNS" and I believe queries both the system resolver and Google, and takes the first response. https://superuser.com/questions/656938/does-chrome-use-a-different-dns-server-from-the-os#656945 https://superuser.com/questions/656938/does-chrome-use-a-dif...
  - lmns 9y ago
    Your link says nothing about Google Public DNS.
  - apexalpha 9y ago
    Isn't that only if you opt in for the Google compression service that essentially uses the Google network as a proxy? I had host-based anti-Adverstising on my network and Chrome never bypasses it even though it should if it were going through Google DNS as well.

stordoff 9y ago

> erode my trust in Mozilla a little Exactly where I'm at. I get the impression that there's an (probably unintentional/unconscious) attitude at Mozilla that they can use user devices for whatever they like providing they can justify it as providing _some_ future benefit to them. That's probably not actually the case, but it's certainly how their actions make it look. I don't exactly trust Google any further, but I at least feel they are more upfront about their intention and don't push seemingly arbitrary experiments out to users or involve third parties in the data collection.

cpeterso 9y ago
> I don't exactly trust Google any further, but I at least feel they are more upfront about their intention and don't push seemingly arbitrary experiments out to users How do you know what experiments Google is running on unsuspecting Chrome users right now? This conversation arose precisely because Mozilla announced it on a public mailing before the experiment started. You can see any current or past Firefox experiments that you've been in on Firefox's about:studies page. I work at Mozilla, but not on these experiments.
thristian 9y ago
A more charitable assessment might be that Mozilla is trying to serve too many use-cases. Chrome is quite happy doing the 20% work that gets them 80% of the userbase, and all the users that Chrome happily sidelines come running to Firefox. That's cool, but some of those users have wildly different priorities, like we see in this case. Some users want protection from interference by their government or their ISP, and couldn't care less if some of their metadata winds up in a database on the other side of the world. Other users are quite relaxed about their local government or ISP, but don't want any of their stuff entering US jurisdiction. And it's not practical to set up a world-wide infrastructure of DNS-over-HTTPS servers just to find out whether it's worthwhile. It's not so much that Mozilla feels "they can use user devices for whatever they like", as much as Mozilla's at a local maximum, and trying to improve anything for some part of their userbase means neglecting some other part, even if only temporarily. And then the neglected parts feel betrayed.

shubb 9y ago

I think that the change mentioned in the post is about 'use cloudflare for DNS rather than whatever your local DNS is'. That has advantages and disadvantages - most people use a DNS automatically configured by the ISP they are using. That might be an untrustworthy DNS from a local access point, or a logging DNS at your ISP. Do you trust cloudflare or BT/comcast less? Where it gets a bit more worrying is - if you specifically use a DNS from your VPN to prevent DNS leaks? Will this even play nice with 'signin page on free wifi served by DNS redirect'.

Vinnl 9y ago

> Both this and the Mr. Robot extension issue a few months ago erode my trust in Mozilla a little. Maybe good to know: the Mr. Robot extension did not send anything anywhere or otherwise did anything unless you explicitly flipped a switch manually in about:config. The thing that was bad about it was that it was listed among your extensions, making it look like a virus, but otherwise it was harmless.

gilrain 9y ago
And that it was a marketing campaign produced in partnership with a television show that somehow wound up in Firefox. What it did or didn't actually do is almost beside the point to those of us who care. Even Google, an advertising company, is not so brazen as to market third-parties in its own browser.

seba_dos1 9y ago

It was perfectly clear to me - I felt like they go out of their way to tell you that using Nightly collects some data about your browsing to make Firefox better. That's literally how they advertise using Nightly.

tradesmanhelix 9y ago

> they should make it more obvious that nightly isn't just daily builds from master. From the downloads page [1]: "Firefox Nightly automatically sends feedback to Mozilla." Not sure how they could make it more obvious. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/

throrthrowth 9y ago

Assume that Chrome is tracking as much as it possibly can, within the bounds set by the privacy policy. The same goes for all products by big IT companies.