4 ms·

And if you don't like Firefox Quantum for its own egregious privacy issues, you can use Waterfox. The next major Waterfox release will have all the speed enhanc

And if you don't like Firefox Quantum for its own egregious privacy issues, you can use Waterfox. The next major Waterfox release will have all the speed enhancements of Firefox Quantum without the privacy issues.

dmeeker 8y ago
Would you mind elaborating on what those egregious privacy issues are for those of us who don't follow particularly closely?
- plopz 8y ago
  Not the parent poster, but the two I can guess at would be the unblockable analytics on settings pages and the mr robot debacle.
  - everybodyknows 8y ago
    Mr. Robot writeup: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-angers-firefox-users-after-force-installing-mr-robot-promo-add-on/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-anger...
- morganvachon 8y ago
  Please see my reply to sjwright above.
sjwright 8y ago
What are Firefox Quantum's egregious privacy issues? All I'm aware of is the encrypted DNS experiment which is a huge, unqualified privacy win. I'm not aware of anything it does that's objectively worse than the privacy catastrophe which is the status quo. Perhaps you are angry because it doesn't send your DNS requests in the clear to Google's 8.8.8.8 service? Perhaps you are angry because you don't like encrypted communication protocols?
- JCSato 8y ago
  This is making a lot of assumptions about GP's reasons. They should probably have explained in the first place, but give them the chance to before suggesting they're angry about something they never brought up, please.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    The GP is being hysterical. A pile of whataboutism and false equivalence.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  Perhaps you are making assumptions without merit? Off the top of my head, forced telemetry (even if you turn it off in about:settings some stuff gets reported back to Mozilla); Pocket and Sponsored Tiles, the former sends Mozilla the URL and form data for every site you visit, the latter has complete access to your browsing history so it can show you "relevant info"; Adobe DRM and Encrypted Media Extensions (some people don't like any DRM in their browser, I don't have an issue if it's trustworthy but you're asking so I'm listing); and a minor, easily corrected nitpick but they went back to Google as their default search engine. My problem with that is every update (so far) ignores user settings and changes it back. This can lead to unexpected unwanted searches via Google.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Literally all of these are (debatably) controversial from a PR perspective, not from an actual privacy perspective. Most of them aren't even privacy issues, which suggests to me that you haven't even researched them. More generally, if any of these things actually offend you, I'm sorry to tell you but you're not the audience for a web browser—after all, general web browsing is far, far worse. Every website you visit gets your IP address and your user agent string. Ooooh noooo.

dmeeker 8y ago

Would you mind elaborating on what those egregious privacy issues are for those of us who don't follow particularly closely?

plopz 8y ago
Not the parent poster, but the two I can guess at would be the unblockable analytics on settings pages and the mr robot debacle.
- everybodyknows 8y ago
  Mr. Robot writeup: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-angers-firefox-users-after-force-installing-mr-robot-promo-add-on/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-anger...
morganvachon 8y ago
Please see my reply to sjwright above.

sjwright 8y ago

What are Firefox Quantum's egregious privacy issues? All I'm aware of is the encrypted DNS experiment which is a huge, unqualified privacy win. I'm not aware of anything it does that's objectively worse than the privacy catastrophe which is the status quo. Perhaps you are angry because it doesn't send your DNS requests in the clear to Google's 8.8.8.8 service? Perhaps you are angry because you don't like encrypted communication protocols?

JCSato 8y ago
This is making a lot of assumptions about GP's reasons. They should probably have explained in the first place, but give them the chance to before suggesting they're angry about something they never brought up, please.
- sjwright 8y ago
  The GP is being hysterical. A pile of whataboutism and false equivalence.
morganvachon 8y ago
Perhaps you are making assumptions without merit? Off the top of my head, forced telemetry (even if you turn it off in about:settings some stuff gets reported back to Mozilla); Pocket and Sponsored Tiles, the former sends Mozilla the URL and form data for every site you visit, the latter has complete access to your browsing history so it can show you "relevant info"; Adobe DRM and Encrypted Media Extensions (some people don't like any DRM in their browser, I don't have an issue if it's trustworthy but you're asking so I'm listing); and a minor, easily corrected nitpick but they went back to Google as their default search engine. My problem with that is every update (so far) ignores user settings and changes it back. This can lead to unexpected unwanted searches via Google.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Literally all of these are (debatably) controversial from a PR perspective, not from an actual privacy perspective. Most of them aren't even privacy issues, which suggests to me that you haven't even researched them. More generally, if any of these things actually offend you, I'm sorry to tell you but you're not the audience for a web browser—after all, general web browsing is far, far worse. Every website you visit gets your IP address and your user agent string. Ooooh noooo.