6 ms·

>But do we really expect VPN providers to not crunch the same numbers and come to the same conclusions? Yes, because those numbers are different -- there's act

>But do we really expect VPN providers to not crunch the same numbers and come to the same conclusions? Yes, because those numbers are different -- there's actual competition among the providers, which is not so for ISPs. I agree it's still a gamble, and still requires trust, but if/when that trust is broken, there's someone else ready to fill that void.

tapoxi 8y ago
Make no mistake, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity. They're owned by a nonprofit shell, but I imagine that nonprofit could easily sell them off. This puts them in the same boat as say, IKEA.
- preinheimer 8y ago
  Like when they slipped a Mr. Robot plugin into the download without telling people? https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
  - BoysenberryPi 8y ago
    I must be the only one who thought this was a non-issue. A molehill turned into a mountain.
    - tehduder9 8y ago
      I bet you'd be screaming hell if chrome would have done it.
      - bigiain 8y ago
        Sure - it was a dumb move on Mozilla's part. But keep in mind that while it was pushed out into people's browsers in a stupidly-lacking-in-foresight fashion, it still required use activation before it'd do anything... I'm at least four nines sure Google have got worse privacy-eroding code in Chrome that does way worse things that flip some text upside down after you specifically activate an add-on...
        Karunamon 8y ago
        As I tell everyone that tries to defend this, it's not about what the plugin did or didn't do. It could have literally been a copy of about:blank, it changes nothing. The entirely justified outrage was its purpose for being put there (which boils down to advertising) and the lack of consent for its being put there. That's it.
        bigiain 8y ago
        Agreed. (At the same time, how much of the automated Chrome updates end up being audited for their "boils down to advertising"ness?)
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Doing nothing is not advertising. The only way for this to be used in advertisement was from Mr. Robot fans to Firefox. > lack of consent Pretend it was a copy of about:blank when you answer this question: What makes this different from the giant pile of patches merged into each release of firefox that you don't read?
        Karunamon 8y ago
        How many of those Firefox patches are advertising references to then-popular media as opposed to new features, security fixes, and so forth? Again. Purpose.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's not answering why it would be wrong even if it was about:blank.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        (I'm making this a separate post because I don't want any distractions in the other one.) If they had done it correctly, it would have been invisible and it would not have advertised anything to firefox users. That is the purpose. It showing up the way it did was an oversight.
      - eridius 8y ago
        On the contrary, we already expect Google to try and monetize its users any way it can.
      - bonsai80 8y ago
        Right. It's the difference in having someone's trust or not.
      - ionised 8y ago
        Not really. We expect shitty things from Google at this point.
    - svrtknst 8y ago
      No, I agree at least. I mean, it was a bad move and thoroughly short-sighted, but then again - what's the score? One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla, vs. the countless others from Google, or Facebook, or whatever. It wasn't a good move, it also wasn't as bad as people make it out to be, and it's defeinitely better than any competition.
      - kiriakasis 8y ago
        > One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla It was a breach of trust, but there was no privacy infraction.
    - sjellis 8y ago
      The incident was trivial, but it exposed serious concerns in the process. Mozilla itself strongly promotes privacy and digital rights, but their marketing people did not understand that this was a breach of trust, and all of the technical people involved in the release of the add-on either did not realise this either, or were overruled.
ryanlol 8y ago
"competition" doesn't work super well here given the information asymmetry between users and providers. There's simply no way for customers to tell if their VPN provider is selling them out.
- jopsen 8y ago
  Isn't that why you want Mozilla? By siding with you they can certainly pave over the asymmetry in the relationship between provider and users. I trust Mozilla, not ProtonVPN, and I trust Mozilla vetted them and will continue to look them over the shoulder. That's more than I can say for my current VPN provider.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    I currently would trust them right up until the point where they receive a subpoena from the government because I said something they deem icky.
    - jopsen 8y ago
      Having worked at Mozilla I can honestly say that I'm confident Mozilla can't keep a neferious secret :) There is a lot of passionate privacy activists at Mozilla. Many of whom to would leak an NSL at the risk of persecution. (In fact I dare say the lineup would be long)

tapoxi 8y ago

Make no mistake, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity. They're owned by a nonprofit shell, but I imagine that nonprofit could easily sell them off. This puts them in the same boat as say, IKEA.

preinheimer 8y ago
Like when they slipped a Mr. Robot plugin into the download without telling people? https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
- BoysenberryPi 8y ago
  I must be the only one who thought this was a non-issue. A molehill turned into a mountain.
  - tehduder9 8y ago
    I bet you'd be screaming hell if chrome would have done it.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      Sure - it was a dumb move on Mozilla's part. But keep in mind that while it was pushed out into people's browsers in a stupidly-lacking-in-foresight fashion, it still required use activation before it'd do anything... I'm at least four nines sure Google have got worse privacy-eroding code in Chrome that does way worse things that flip some text upside down after you specifically activate an add-on...
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        As I tell everyone that tries to defend this, it's not about what the plugin did or didn't do. It could have literally been a copy of about:blank, it changes nothing. The entirely justified outrage was its purpose for being put there (which boils down to advertising) and the lack of consent for its being put there. That's it.
        bigiain 8y ago
        Agreed. (At the same time, how much of the automated Chrome updates end up being audited for their "boils down to advertising"ness?)
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Doing nothing is not advertising. The only way for this to be used in advertisement was from Mr. Robot fans to Firefox. > lack of consent Pretend it was a copy of about:blank when you answer this question: What makes this different from the giant pile of patches merged into each release of firefox that you don't read?
        Karunamon 8y ago
        How many of those Firefox patches are advertising references to then-popular media as opposed to new features, security fixes, and so forth? Again. Purpose.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's not answering why it would be wrong even if it was about:blank.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        (I'm making this a separate post because I don't want any distractions in the other one.) If they had done it correctly, it would have been invisible and it would not have advertised anything to firefox users. That is the purpose. It showing up the way it did was an oversight.
    - eridius 8y ago
      On the contrary, we already expect Google to try and monetize its users any way it can.
    - bonsai80 8y ago
      Right. It's the difference in having someone's trust or not.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Not really. We expect shitty things from Google at this point.
  - svrtknst 8y ago
    No, I agree at least. I mean, it was a bad move and thoroughly short-sighted, but then again - what's the score? One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla, vs. the countless others from Google, or Facebook, or whatever. It wasn't a good move, it also wasn't as bad as people make it out to be, and it's defeinitely better than any competition.
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      > One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla It was a breach of trust, but there was no privacy infraction.
  - sjellis 8y ago
    The incident was trivial, but it exposed serious concerns in the process. Mozilla itself strongly promotes privacy and digital rights, but their marketing people did not understand that this was a breach of trust, and all of the technical people involved in the release of the add-on either did not realise this either, or were overruled.

ryanlol 8y ago

"competition" doesn't work super well here given the information asymmetry between users and providers. There's simply no way for customers to tell if their VPN provider is selling them out.

jopsen 8y ago
Isn't that why you want Mozilla? By siding with you they can certainly pave over the asymmetry in the relationship between provider and users. I trust Mozilla, not ProtonVPN, and I trust Mozilla vetted them and will continue to look them over the shoulder. That's more than I can say for my current VPN provider.
- acct1771 8y ago
  I currently would trust them right up until the point where they receive a subpoena from the government because I said something they deem icky.
  - jopsen 8y ago
    Having worked at Mozilla I can honestly say that I'm confident Mozilla can't keep a neferious secret :) There is a lot of passionate privacy activists at Mozilla. Many of whom to would leak an NSL at the risk of persecution. (In fact I dare say the lineup would be long)