3 ms·

Uh oh, I just learned that Mozilla injects Google Analytics tracking code into Firefox itself. When you go to about:addons, it sends tracking data to Googles se

by TekMol 8y ago

Uh oh, I just learned that Mozilla injects Google Analytics tracking code into Firefox itself. When you go to about:addons, it sends tracking data to Googles servers. Is there a way to get rid of that? It seems to be not blocked by a default umatrix for example. I think we really need a browser by a more trustworthy party. Maybe Debian could make a Firefox fork that is more user friendly in terms of privacy? Is there a way for vote for this or sponsor such a development?

JohnTHaller 8y ago
Mozilla has a special agreement with Google for this that anonimizes the data.
- TekMol 8y ago
  I'm sure every tracking company out there says they do only good with the data they track. If that is what it takes to make tracking ok, then why bother at all?
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    What? Did you even read the parent comment? It’s a legal contract.
    - natch 8y ago
      Contracts that purport to protect user privacy are often rife with weasel words. So I wouldn’t assume anything.
      - jonathanyc 8y ago
        Ah yes, it’s so easy to prove a conspiracy to yourself if you just assume one to begin with.
        natch 8y ago
        No I’m not assuming either way. But we know the incentives are there for tracking to be effective as opposed to ineffective. I’d argue it’s more rational to take the landscape as it is, rather than how we wish it to be.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    what does this mean? why is google interested in our about page behaviour? the only motive I can imagine is to understand what fraction of users they are missing and why? why should we tolerate handing out such strategic data?
- natch 8y ago
  For certain values of “anonymizes.” /snark
- c3534l 8y ago
  You cannot anonymize data and we've known this since the Netflix data was famously deanonymized. "Anonymized data" is what people call it when they're lying or don't know enough to be trusted with privacy. The primary issue is that data that seems harmless in isolation can be powerful in aggregate, that any data unique enough to be informative to a third party can be used to triangulate an individual's identity, and that data which cannot be matched up with a user today might be in the future when more information is available or statistical tools are improved. If Firefox actually does say they "anonymize" your data, that's a pretty damning indictment on their lack of trustworthiness and diligence.
bopbop 8y ago
Apparently it respects Do Not Track, according to some discussion above and at https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 The link also seems to say you can block it in uMatrix, but it isn't by default
- buckminster 8y ago
  It appears to be blocked by uMatrix but the author notes further down that firefox is silently ignoring the block. This is very concerning.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    It's not for malicious reasons, FF blocks extensions from fucking around with various core mozilla sites like the Addon store and the Testpilot plugins. Otherwise malicious plugins could do a lot of damage there.
    - buckminster 8y ago
      Sure. And FF could achieve that without misleading me.
- TekMol 8y ago
  No, you cannot block it via umatrix or any other extension. If you read the whole discussion you will see that this only was possible in the old extension tech that Mozilla meanwhile replaced with webextension. And those can't. They injected a non-removable external tracking system right into the browser that they market as privacy focussed.
  - ColanR 8y ago
    Actually, if you read to the bottom of the discussion [0] you'll see that it was fixed, and FF respects the Do Not Track setting. In addition, they negotiated with google special terms for their analytics. This is the description [1] and this is the resulting options they got [2]. [0] https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issuecomment-315212909 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issue... [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 [2] https://bug697436.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=732070 https://bug697436.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=73207...
opan 8y ago
Icecat has less tracking. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/icecat.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/icecat.html
singularity2001 8y ago
That is shocking and disgusting. Is that even allowed under new EU law?
mirimir 8y ago
Can one block in hosts? Or does it use too many hostnames/IPs? Edit: OK, so I've played some with Wireshark. And it seems that Firefox is talking to many Google servers. So blocking google-analytics.com in hosts seems to do nothing. But then, this is a Firefox install with several extensions, so it's impossible to say who's doing what. So hey, I guess I need to check this out in a LiveCD VM.
yuhong 8y ago
I mentioned the history of Google Analytics/Urchin in the essay too.

by TekMol 8y ago

JohnTHaller 8y ago

Mozilla has a special agreement with Google for this that anonimizes the data.

TekMol 8y ago
I'm sure every tracking company out there says they do only good with the data they track. If that is what it takes to make tracking ok, then why bother at all?
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  What? Did you even read the parent comment? It’s a legal contract.
  - natch 8y ago
    Contracts that purport to protect user privacy are often rife with weasel words. So I wouldn’t assume anything.
    - jonathanyc 8y ago
      Ah yes, it’s so easy to prove a conspiracy to yourself if you just assume one to begin with.
      - natch 8y ago
        No I’m not assuming either way. But we know the incentives are there for tracking to be effective as opposed to ineffective. I’d argue it’s more rational to take the landscape as it is, rather than how we wish it to be.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  what does this mean? why is google interested in our about page behaviour? the only motive I can imagine is to understand what fraction of users they are missing and why? why should we tolerate handing out such strategic data?
natch 8y ago
For certain values of “anonymizes.” /snark
c3534l 8y ago
You cannot anonymize data and we've known this since the Netflix data was famously deanonymized. "Anonymized data" is what people call it when they're lying or don't know enough to be trusted with privacy. The primary issue is that data that seems harmless in isolation can be powerful in aggregate, that any data unique enough to be informative to a third party can be used to triangulate an individual's identity, and that data which cannot be matched up with a user today might be in the future when more information is available or statistical tools are improved. If Firefox actually does say they "anonymize" your data, that's a pretty damning indictment on their lack of trustworthiness and diligence.

bopbop 8y ago

Apparently it respects Do Not Track, according to some discussion above and at https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785 The link also seems to say you can block it in uMatrix, but it isn't by default

buckminster 8y ago
It appears to be blocked by uMatrix but the author notes further down that firefox is silently ignoring the block. This is very concerning.
- zaarn 8y ago
  It's not for malicious reasons, FF blocks extensions from fucking around with various core mozilla sites like the Addon store and the Testpilot plugins. Otherwise malicious plugins could do a lot of damage there.
  - buckminster 8y ago
    Sure. And FF could achieve that without misleading me.
TekMol 8y ago
No, you cannot block it via umatrix or any other extension. If you read the whole discussion you will see that this only was possible in the old extension tech that Mozilla meanwhile replaced with webextension. And those can't. They injected a non-removable external tracking system right into the browser that they market as privacy focussed.
- ColanR 8y ago
  Actually, if you read to the bottom of the discussion [0] you'll see that it was fixed, and FF respects the Do Not Track setting. In addition, they negotiated with google special terms for their analytics. This is the description [1] and this is the resulting options they got [2]. [0] https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issuecomment-315212909 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issue... [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697436#c14 [2] https://bug697436.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=732070 https://bug697436.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=73207...

opan 8y ago

Icecat has less tracking. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/icecat.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/icecat.html

singularity2001 8y ago

That is shocking and disgusting. Is that even allowed under new EU law?

mirimir 8y ago

Can one block in hosts? Or does it use too many hostnames/IPs? Edit: OK, so I've played some with Wireshark. And it seems that Firefox is talking to many Google servers. So blocking google-analytics.com in hosts seems to do nothing. But then, this is a Firefox install with several extensions, so it's impossible to say who's doing what. So hey, I guess I need to check this out in a LiveCD VM.

yuhong 8y ago

I mentioned the history of Google Analytics/Urchin in the essay too.