6 ms·

This post has third party JS in it from Google Analytics that looks to be accepting a bunch of fairly unique looking parameters.

by javery 8y ago

tunap 8y ago
Yep. Moz hits all the right talking points... then implements/participates in said behaviors. In a good way, supposedly.
firloop 8y ago
However, Mozilla has a special agreement with Google Analytics that ensures all data is anonymized. Some discussion which mentions that here: https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785
- spacehome 8y ago
  Surely we can trust Google.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    Why does Mozilla NEED Google’s analytics?
    - mrep 8y ago
      I don't work for Mozilla but presumably they will be at a disadvantage in identifying and thus prioritizing features that their customers want compared to competing browsers. Less features -> less users -> less revenue from google for paying to be the default search engine which then completes the reinforcement cycle as they will have less money to spend on features. Now they probably don't NEED it, but with every user they lose to chrome, they get less and less money until the only market for them would potentially be the privacy focused ones (although I here chromes got really good privacy features nowadays) which are such a small population that they wouldn't even have enough customers to justify the revenue to even match competing browser features. Thus, you would end up with a lackluster browser that cannot match competing browsers and its only niche are privacy people.
- TekMol 8y ago
  Jesus, that is not about Google Analytics on Mozillas websites but on the about:addons page of Firefox. That is terrifying.
  - firloop 8y ago
    I know, but I imagine Mozilla has the same policy everywhere they use Google Analytics and that was the best source I could find for it.
    - TekMol 8y ago
      No, what I mean is: Apparently Mozilla injects Google Analytics right into Firefox. That is terrifying.
      - dewey 8y ago
        Not much more terrifying than every website using it.
        TekMol 8y ago
        It's more terrifying because a) I can block it from websites easily. Not so from Firefox about:... pages. b) Firefox has a marketing angle that they are privacy protecting. But injecting external tracking code into the browser itself is the opposite.
        dewey 8y ago
        If you really want to be sure then you should block it in your hosts file anyway and not just on an extension level. Homebrew also has it included with a pretty good description why I think: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics.md https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....
        geezerjay 8y ago
        > Not much more terrifying than every website using it. Actually it is. It suggests the organization behind the browser actively takes steps to embed tracking right in the browser.
- realusername 8y ago
  (from your Github issue) > We won't use Piwik. Mozilla uses Google Analytics for website analytics. Hosting our own is more work for a worse product. Apparently there's some people who are not fans of Piwik, that's a shame.
  - jszymborski 8y ago
    Friendly reminder that Piwik has renamed to Matomo.
    - cecja 8y ago
      Again? Wasn't it like 3 years ago when they switched to piwik?
      - driverdan 8y ago
        No, it has always been Piwik. At least that's what it was named when I first used it in 2010.
      - wolfgang42 8y ago
        The predecessor was phpMyVisites, but that was replaced by Piwik in 2007.
- lucideer 8y ago
  The fact that someone in the organisation actually thought "on let's approach Google and ask for this special agreement" shows a naïvety that really shouldn't exist in a company I'm supposedly trusting to protect my privacy. I really hope this kind of non-sense starts changing in Mozilla soon. This post is promising, but—as the gp points out—still not without glaring irony/hypocrisy.
  - TheRealPomax 8y ago
    What's naive about it when they _got Google to agree under contract_? Let's turn that around instead: I really hope this kind of sensible demand becomes wider spread, with more people going to Google saying "we only want to use your tools if the data is anonymised and you do this under a contractual obligation that we can sue you over if you ever violate, as a partner agreement rather than a service/customer relation". Plenty of huge sites out there could quite easily demand the same thing without affecting ABC's bottom line while making the lives of others better in incremental steps.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 "Mozilla went through a year long legal discussion with GA before we would ever implement it on our websites. GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties. We now have two check boxes in our GA premium account that allows us to opt-out of additional usage of our data. Because Mozilla pushed Google so hard, those two check boxes are available to every other GA user in the world regardless if they have a premium account like we do. GA also doesn't track IPs or store PII within the tool." -- Seriously, those bastards. Only having internal controls and debate, sustained legal engagement, and ultimately DNT-obedience. I expected more. /sarcasm
      - DoctorOetker 8y ago
        is their contract even public? "GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties." (emphasis mine) am I the only one who finds the usage of the word provide odd? Literally it means GA had to list what and how (insinuating they blindly trust GA to do only what it says it does). Not-literally but the flow of the phrase makes it seem like they want to convey "GA had to prove how and what ..." but without actually making that claim. In the case Mozilla does have proof why don't they share the anonymization framework with proofs? In case they don't we are supposed to be OK with their feigned naivety?
- ummonk 8y ago
  Between this and the stupid Mr. Robot thing, I’m starting to seriously question the judgement of PMs at Mozilla (or Firefox at least).

This post has third party JS in it from Google Analytics that looks to be accepting a bunch of fairly unique looking parameters.

by javery 8y ago

This post has third party JS in it from Google Analytics that looks to be accepting a bunch of fairly unique looking parameters.

tunap 8y ago

Yep. Moz hits all the right talking points... then implements/participates in said behaviors. In a good way, supposedly.

firloop 8y ago

However, Mozilla has a special agreement with Google Analytics that ensures all data is anonymized. Some discussion which mentions that here: https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785

spacehome 8y ago
Surely we can trust Google.
- EGreg 8y ago
  Why does Mozilla NEED Google’s analytics?
  - mrep 8y ago
    I don't work for Mozilla but presumably they will be at a disadvantage in identifying and thus prioritizing features that their customers want compared to competing browsers. Less features -> less users -> less revenue from google for paying to be the default search engine which then completes the reinforcement cycle as they will have less money to spend on features. Now they probably don't NEED it, but with every user they lose to chrome, they get less and less money until the only market for them would potentially be the privacy focused ones (although I here chromes got really good privacy features nowadays) which are such a small population that they wouldn't even have enough customers to justify the revenue to even match competing browser features. Thus, you would end up with a lackluster browser that cannot match competing browsers and its only niche are privacy people.
TekMol 8y ago
Jesus, that is not about Google Analytics on Mozillas websites but on the about:addons page of Firefox. That is terrifying.
- firloop 8y ago
  I know, but I imagine Mozilla has the same policy everywhere they use Google Analytics and that was the best source I could find for it.
  - TekMol 8y ago
    No, what I mean is: Apparently Mozilla injects Google Analytics right into Firefox. That is terrifying.
    - dewey 8y ago
      Not much more terrifying than every website using it.
      - TekMol 8y ago
        It's more terrifying because a) I can block it from websites easily. Not so from Firefox about:... pages. b) Firefox has a marketing angle that they are privacy protecting. But injecting external tracking code into the browser itself is the opposite.
        dewey 8y ago
        If you really want to be sure then you should block it in your hosts file anyway and not just on an extension level. Homebrew also has it included with a pretty good description why I think: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics.md https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > Not much more terrifying than every website using it. Actually it is. It suggests the organization behind the browser actively takes steps to embed tracking right in the browser.
realusername 8y ago
(from your Github issue) > We won't use Piwik. Mozilla uses Google Analytics for website analytics. Hosting our own is more work for a worse product. Apparently there's some people who are not fans of Piwik, that's a shame.
- jszymborski 8y ago
  Friendly reminder that Piwik has renamed to Matomo.
  - cecja 8y ago
    Again? Wasn't it like 3 years ago when they switched to piwik?
    - driverdan 8y ago
      No, it has always been Piwik. At least that's what it was named when I first used it in 2010.
    - wolfgang42 8y ago
      The predecessor was phpMyVisites, but that was replaced by Piwik in 2007.
lucideer 8y ago
The fact that someone in the organisation actually thought "on let's approach Google and ask for this special agreement" shows a naïvety that really shouldn't exist in a company I'm supposedly trusting to protect my privacy. I really hope this kind of non-sense starts changing in Mozilla soon. This post is promising, but—as the gp points out—still not without glaring irony/hypocrisy.
- TheRealPomax 8y ago
  What's naive about it when they _got Google to agree under contract_? Let's turn that around instead: I really hope this kind of sensible demand becomes wider spread, with more people going to Google saying "we only want to use your tools if the data is anonymised and you do this under a contractual obligation that we can sue you over if you ever violate, as a partner agreement rather than a service/customer relation". Plenty of huge sites out there could quite easily demand the same thing without affecting ABC's bottom line while making the lives of others better in incremental steps.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 "Mozilla went through a year long legal discussion with GA before we would ever implement it on our websites. GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties. We now have two check boxes in our GA premium account that allows us to opt-out of additional usage of our data. Because Mozilla pushed Google so hard, those two check boxes are available to every other GA user in the world regardless if they have a premium account like we do. GA also doesn't track IPs or store PII within the tool." -- Seriously, those bastards. Only having internal controls and debate, sustained legal engagement, and ultimately DNT-obedience. I expected more. /sarcasm
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      is their contract even public? "GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties." (emphasis mine) am I the only one who finds the usage of the word provide odd? Literally it means GA had to list what and how (insinuating they blindly trust GA to do only what it says it does). Not-literally but the flow of the phrase makes it seem like they want to convey "GA had to prove how and what ..." but without actually making that claim. In the case Mozilla does have proof why don't they share the anonymization framework with proofs? In case they don't we are supposed to be OK with their feigned naivety?
ummonk 8y ago
Between this and the stupid Mr. Robot thing, I’m starting to seriously question the judgement of PMs at Mozilla (or Firefox at least).